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' and includes a POST endpoint, implying a write operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The mention of 'multipart/form-data' in the schema is not explained in the description, leaving gaps in understanding how to invoke it correctly.

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 sentences: one stating the action and category, and another providing the HTTP method and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the second sentence is somewhat redundant with the tool name and could be more informative, but overall it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 four required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks context on what the tool returns, error conditions, or how it fits into the broader action plan system. The agent would struggle to use this effectively without additional information beyond the basic schema.

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%, so the schema fully documents the four parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between 'plan_template_item_id' and the reference or the purpose of the 'payload' object. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description does not 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 states the tool creates a 'Company Action Plan Template Reference' and includes a category tag '[Project Management/Action Plans]', which clarifies the domain. However, it does not specify what a 'Template Reference' is or what resource it creates, making the purpose somewhat vague. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on company-level action plan templates, but lacks detail on what the reference entails.

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, such as needing an existing template item, or compare it to similar tools like 'create_project_action_plan_template_reference' or 'bulk_create_action_plan_template_references'. Without this context, the agent has no usage direction.

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