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 implies a write operation ('Create') but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The endpoint method ('POST') hints at creation, but no additional context is given, leaving significant gaps.

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 and front-loaded with the action ('Create Catalog'), followed by category and endpoint details in a single line. There is no wasted verbiage, though it could be more informative. The structure is efficient, earning a high score for 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on the catalog's purpose, expected behavior, or return values. While the schema covers parameters, the overall context for the agent to use the tool effectively is insufficient, especially for a write operation.

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 descriptions for both parameters (e.g., 'company_id' as 'Unique company identifier'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema adequately documents them. With high coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but the schema does the work.

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 Catalog. [Preconstruction/Cost Catalog] POST /rest/v2.0/companies/{company_id}/estimating/catalogs' restates the tool name ('Create Catalog') and adds minimal context with the bracketed category and endpoint. It specifies the verb ('Create') and resource ('Catalog') but lacks detail on what a catalog is or its purpose, making it somewhat vague. It does not distinguish from sibling tools beyond the endpoint path.

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, or exclusions, and with many sibling tools (e.g., 'create_new_sub_cost_catalog_v2_0'), there is no differentiation. This leaves 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.