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 states 'Create' (implying a write/mutation) and includes a POST endpoint, which hints at creation behavior. However, it doesn't disclose critical traits like required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, or the format of the created entity. 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 a single, efficient sentence that includes the tool's purpose, domain context, and API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the endpoint or adding a brief note on usage, but it remains concise.

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 creating a change order package (a financial/construction mutation), the description is incomplete. No annotations exist, and there's no output schema, so the agent doesn't know what the tool returns (e.g., success confirmation, package ID). The description lacks behavioral details and usage context, making it inadequate for safe and effective tool invocation.

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 in the schema (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project'). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema. Given the high coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately documents parameters without extra help from the description.

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 action ('Create') and resource ('Change Order Package'), which is clear but basic. It includes a domain context '[Construction Financials/Change Orders]' and API endpoint 'POST /rest/v1.0/change_order_packages', which adds specificity. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create_change_order_request' or 'create_commitment_change_order', leaving room for ambiguity.

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 lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether a project and contract must exist first, or when a change order package is appropriate compared to other change-related tools. This omission 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.