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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'POST', implying a write operation, but does not specify required permissions, whether it's idempotent, potential side effects (e.g., creating associated items), or error handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 core action ('Create Checklist'). The additional details (category, HTTP method/path) are brief and relevant. However, the structure could be slightly improved by separating the functional purpose from technical details for better readability.

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 (5 parameters, nested objects, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key aspects like the tool's mutative nature, required permissions, expected response format, or error conditions. For a creation tool with multiple required inputs, more contextual information is needed to guide effective use.

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 already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between 'project_id', 'template_id', and 'list', or clarify 'attachments' handling). Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 action ('Create Checklist') and resource ('Checklist'), which is clear. It also includes a category hint ('[Project Management/Inspections]') and the HTTP method/path ('POST /rest/v1.0/checklist/lists'), providing specific context. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create_checklist_inspection' or 'create_checklist_schedule', which slightly limits differentiation.

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 lacks information about prerequisites (e.g., needing a project and template), use cases, or comparisons with sibling tools (e.g., 'create_checklist_inspection' for inspections vs. general checklists). This absence leaves the agent without direction on appropriate usage.

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