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 states 'Create Checklist (Inspection)' which implies a write/mutation operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or typical response format. The HTTP method (POST) hints at creation, but no further context is given.

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. It wastes no words, though it could be more informative. The structure is straightforward, but the brevity leads to under-specification rather than true 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 (a creation tool with 4 parameters including a nested object), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain what a 'Checklist (Inspection)' is, what the 'list' parameter should contain, or what the tool returns. 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%, with clear descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'project_id', 'list_template_id'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, not even mentioning the 'list' object's purpose. However, since the schema is well-documented, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't detract but doesn't add value either.

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 Checklist (Inspection). [Project Management/Inspections] POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/checklist/lists' restates the tool name ('Create Checklist (Inspection)') and adds only a category tag and HTTP endpoint. It does not specify what 'Create Checklist (Inspection)' means in terms of action and resource, nor how it differs from sibling tools like 'create_checklist' or 'create_checklist_inspection_v1_1'. This is a tautology with minimal added value.

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 sibling tools like 'create_checklist' and 'create_checklist_inspection_v1_1', there is no indication of differences in context, prerequisites, or use cases. This leaves the agent without any usage direction.

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