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' which implies a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or the expected response format. The description is minimal and lacks crucial operational context.

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 no wasted words, consisting of a brief title-like phrase and an API endpoint. However, it's overly terse and could benefit from more explanatory content without sacrificing brevity, as it currently under-specifies the tool's purpose.

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 write operation with three required parameters (including a nested object) and no annotations or output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the mutation's impact, error conditions, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to 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%, with parameters 'list_id', 'project_id', and 'section' documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about these parameters, such as what a 'Section object' contains or how 'list_id' relates to checklists. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 Section') and provides context ('[Project Management/Inspections]'), but it's vague about what a 'Checklist Section' entails and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_checklist' or 'create_checklist_inspection'. It repeats the tool name without elaborating on the resource's nature.

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. With many sibling tools related to checklists (e.g., 'create_checklist', 'create_checklist_inspection'), the description lacks any context about prerequisites, dependencies, or appropriate scenarios for creating a section within a checklist list.

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