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 mentions 'POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/schedule/calendar_items', implying a write operation, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, error handling, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for safe invocation.

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, front-loading the core action. However, the inclusion of the endpoint and legacy tag, while informative, could be considered slightly extraneous for an AI agent's primary understanding, though it remains efficient overall.

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 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on success/error responses, side effects, or integration context, leaving the agent poorly equipped to handle this mutation operation 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 9 parameters well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for adequate coverage without extra value.

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 verb ('Create') and resource ('Calendar Item'), which is clear. However, it lacks specificity about what a Calendar Item represents (e.g., an event, task, or milestone) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_task' or 'create_event', making it vague in context.

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 includes a category tag '[Project Management/Schedule (Legacy)]' and an endpoint, but these do not offer practical usage instructions, prerequisites, or exclusions for an AI agent.

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