Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states 'Create Change Event' and 'POST', implying a write operation, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or the expected response format. The mention of 'multipart/form-data' for attachments in the schema is not reflected in the description.

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—two brief phrases—and front-loaded with the core action. However, it lacks substance; the conciseness comes at the cost of informativeness, though it avoids redundancy.

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 (6 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It does not explain the purpose of a 'Change Event', the required 'change_event' object structure, or the implications of creating one. The schema provides parameter details, but the description fails to offer necessary context for a mutation tool.

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 detailed parameter descriptions in the schema itself (e.g., 'change_event_origin_type' enum values, attachment upload instructions). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema is comprehensive, justifying the baseline score of 3.

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 Change Event. [Construction Financials/Change Events] POST /rest/v1.0/change_events' is largely tautological, restating the tool name ('Create Change Event') and adding only a vague category and HTTP method. It does not specify what a 'Change Event' is, what it creates, or how it differs from siblings like 'create_change_event_v1_1' or 'create_change_event_production_quantity'.

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 distinctions from sibling tools (e.g., 'create_change_event_v1_1'), 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.