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' (implying a write/mutation operation) but does not clarify permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, what happens on success/failure, or typical response format. The API endpoint hint suggests a POST request, but without annotations, critical details like side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements are missing, making it inadequate for a mutation tool.

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 but under-specified—it's a single sentence with an API endpoint. While not verbose, it fails to front-load essential information for an agent, such as the tool's core function or key constraints. The structure is minimal but lacks the depth needed for effective tool selection.

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 (28 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a 'Commitment Change Order Batch' is, its typical use in construction financials, or the implications of creating one. Without annotations or output schema, the agent lacks context on behavioral traits and return values, making this description insufficient for a mutation tool with many parameters.

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 detailed parameter descriptions in the input schema (e.g., 'project_id' as 'Unique identifier for the project'). The description adds no parameter information beyond the schema. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description neither compensates for gaps nor adds meaningful context.

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 Commitment Change Order Batch. [Construction Financials/Commitments] POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/commitment_change_order_batches' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name and adds an API endpoint. It lacks a specific verb+resource explanation (e.g., what a 'Commitment Change Order Batch' is in this context) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'create_commitment_change_order' or 'create_prime_change_order_batch', which appear related. The domain hint '[Construction Financials/Commitments]' is minimal context but insufficient for clear purpose.

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 does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. Given the sibling list includes tools like 'create_commitment_change_order' and 'create_prime_change_order_batch', the absence of differentiation is a significant gap, leaving the agent to guess based on names alone.

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