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 states 'Create Classification' and includes an HTTP POST endpoint, implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions beyond 'Company Admin/Company Settings', whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate names, or the response format. The description adds minimal context beyond the implied mutation.

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 two parts: 'Create Classification' and the endpoint details. It's front-loaded with the action, but could be more structured by separating purpose from technical details. There's no wasted text, but it's slightly terse, missing explanatory context that would enhance clarity without adding bulk.

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 doesn't explain what a 'classification' is, the expected output, error conditions, or administrative requirements. The endpoint hint adds some context, but for a mutation tool, more behavioral and usage details are needed to guide the agent 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 parameter descriptions in the schema (company_id, name, abbreviation). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, constraints, or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate with additional insights.

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 Classification' restates the tool name without elaboration, making the purpose vague. It mentions '[Company Admin/Company Settings] POST /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/work_classifications', which adds context about the endpoint and admin scope, but doesn't specify what a 'classification' is or what it's used for. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on classification creation, but lacks clarity on the resource type.

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 mentions '[Company Admin/Company Settings]', implying administrative context, but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or when to choose this over other classification-related tools (e.g., 'update_a_classification' or 'list_all_classifications'). No explicit when/when-not statements or named alternatives are included.

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