Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Create' (implying a write/mutation) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it triggers notifications, if it's idempotent, or what happens on failure. The API endpoint hint ('POST') suggests a mutation, but no safety or side-effect details are 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 (one sentence with an endpoint) and front-loaded with the action. However, it wastes space on the API endpoint detail, which doesn't help an AI agent select the tool. It could be more structured by explaining the purpose rather than technical details.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool ('Create'), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a signature request is, what the output might be (e.g., success/failure, request ID), or any error conditions. For a tool that likely involves permissions and workflow, this lack of context is a significant gap.

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., 'Checklist ID', 'Unique identifier for the project.', 'ID of the User requested to sign'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema provides adequate documentation, meeting the baseline score of 3.

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 restates the tool name ('Create Checklist Signature Request') with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It adds a category tag '[Project Management/Inspections]' and the API endpoint, but doesn't specify what a 'signature request' entails or what resource it creates. It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_checklist_signature' or 'creates_a_inspection_item_signature_request_v2_0_project'.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or any sibling tools for comparison. An agent would have no indication of appropriate scenarios or constraints for invoking this tool.

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