Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the creation action and API endpoint, missing critical details like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 (one sentence plus endpoint) and front-loaded with the action, but it wastes space on the API endpoint (redundant for an agent) and lacks meaningful structure. It could be more efficient by omitting the endpoint and adding context.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool with nested objects, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the expected behavior, output format, error conditions, or how the 'budget_line_item' object should be structured, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 clear parameter descriptions ('Unique identifier for the project' and 'Budget Line Item object'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema adequately documents the inputs, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 Budget Line Item. [Construction Financials/Budget] POST /rest/v1.1/budget_line_items' restates the tool name ('Create Budget Line Item') and adds only a category label and API endpoint. It lacks a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings (e.g., 'create_budget_modification' or 'create_budget_change'), making the purpose vague beyond the obvious creation action.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., when a budget line item is needed), or sibling tools like 'create_budget_modification' or 'create_budget_change', leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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