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 indicates a POST operation, implying a write/mutation, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on failure. This leaves the agent with insufficient information for safe invocation.

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. However, it includes an unnecessary HTTP method and endpoint detail ('POST /rest/v1.0/checklist/lists/{list_id}/comments') that does not aid the AI agent in tool selection or invocation, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 information on success/failure responses, error handling, and the impact of the operation (e.g., whether comments are visible immediately). This leaves significant gaps for the agent to operate effectively.

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 four parameters (list_id, project_id, item_id, comment). The description adds no additional meaning about parameter relationships, constraints, or the structure of the 'comment' object beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 Comment') and the resource ('checklist/lists/{list_id}/comments'), which clarifies the purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'creates_an_inspection_item_comment' or 'create_punch_item_comment', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific comment tool.

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 context about prerequisites, such as whether the checklist or item must exist, and does not mention sibling tools like 'creates_an_inspection_item_comment' for comparison, leaving usage unclear.

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