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. It states 'Create' (implying a write/mutation operation) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or rate limits. The endpoint path suggests a POST request, but no further details are given, leaving significant gaps in transparency.

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 sentences: one stating the action and context, and another providing the endpoint. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could be more structured by explicitly separating purpose from technical details, but it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 (a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'BIM Mint Tokens' are, the expected output, error handling, or any behavioral context. The endpoint path adds some technical context, but overall, it's insufficient for a mutation tool without structured support.

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 the single parameter 'project_id' documented as 'Unique identifier for the project.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the action ('Create BIM Mint Tokens') and provides context ('Preconstruction/BIM'), but it's vague about what 'BIM Mint Tokens' actually are or what they do. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the specific endpoint, but the purpose remains unclear without domain knowledge.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description includes the endpoint path, which hints at a specific context, but there's no explicit mention of prerequisites, when-not scenarios, or sibling tool comparisons. Usage is implied but not clearly defined.

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