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/v1.1/change_events', implying a write operation, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, rate limits, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with 15 parameters and no output schema.

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, but it is front-loaded with the action and includes an API endpoint. However, the second sentence adds minimal value beyond the first, and it could be more structured to highlight key parameters or usage.

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 (15 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's role in the system, expected outcomes, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand and invoke it correctly.

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%, so the schema documents all parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between fields like 'scope' and 'status'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Change Event'), but it is vague about what a 'Change Event' is in the Construction Financials context. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_change_order_request' or 'create_potential_change_order', leaving the purpose unclear beyond the basic 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to changes (e.g., 'create_change_order_request', 'create_potential_change_order'), there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or distinctions, making it misleading for selection.

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