Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Create' and includes a POST endpoint, implying a write operation, but does not specify required permissions, whether it's idempotent, potential side effects (e.g., if it affects other template items), or error conditions. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the implied mutation, leaving significant gaps for a tool that creates resources.

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, consisting of a single sentence that includes the tool's purpose, category, and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the action ('Create') and avoids unnecessary verbosity. However, it could be more structured by separating the endpoint or adding brief context, but it efficiently conveys core information without waste.

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 5 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., permissions, error handling), usage context, and what the tool returns. While the schema covers parameters well, the description does not address the broader context needed for effective tool invocation, especially for a mutation operation.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter definitions (e.g., 'company_id' as a unique identifier, 'holding_type' enum explained). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but since schema coverage is high, the baseline score is 3. The description does not compensate for any gaps because there are none in the schema.

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 Company Action Plan Template Item' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It adds the category '[Project Management/Action Plans]' and the endpoint 'POST /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/action_plans/plan_template_items', which provides some context but does not clearly articulate what the tool does beyond the obvious 'create' action. It lacks specificity about the resource being created (e.g., what a 'template item' represents in this context) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools, such as 'create_company_action_plan_templates' or 'create_company_action_plan_template_section'.

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 (e.g., needing an existing template section), exclusions, or related tools like 'create_company_action_plan_template_section' or 'create_company_action_plan_templates'. Without such context, an agent cannot make informed decisions about tool selection.

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