Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create billing period' which implies a write/mutation operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on conflicts, or the response format. The mention of 'POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/billing_periods' hints at an HTTP method but adds no practical context for an AI agent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise with two parts: 'Create billing period.' and '[Construction Financials/Commitments] POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/billing_periods'. However, it is not front-loaded with useful information; the second part is technical detail that doesn't aid tool selection. It avoids verbosity but under-specifies, making it less helpful than it could be for its brevity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of a creation tool with 5 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the purpose of a billing period, what it affects, or what the tool returns. The technical endpoint detail does not compensate for the lack of contextual information needed for an AI agent to use this tool effectively.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters documented in the schema (project_id, due_date, start_date, end_date, status with enum). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, not even mentioning the required project_id path parameter. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Create billing period' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'create_billing_period' without adding clarity. It lacks specificity about what a billing period entails or its purpose in the context of 'Construction Financials/Commitments'. While it mentions the resource ('billing period'), it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools, which include many other 'create_' operations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., when billing periods are needed), or exclusions. The sibling tools list includes many creation tools, but the description fails to differentiate this one, leaving the agent without usage direction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.