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 mentions a POST endpoint, implying a write operation, but does not clarify permissions required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or the typical response format. The description lacks critical details like side effects, error handling, or any constraints, leaving the agent with insufficient behavioral context for safe invocation.

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 consists of a single sentence that repeats the name, followed by a category and endpoint. While not verbose, it fails to convey essential information efficiently. The structure is front-loaded with the tool name but lacks meaningful content, making it less helpful despite its brevity.

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 does not explain what a 'Company Action Plan Template Section' is, what it returns, or any prerequisites. The agent lacks context on the tool's role in the system, expected outcomes, or error conditions, making it inadequate for informed use.

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 descriptions for each parameter (company_id, plan_template_id, title). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it does not explain relationships between parameters (e.g., that plan_template_id must reference an existing template) or provide examples. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 Section' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name, adding no clarity. It includes a category tag '[Project Management/Action Plans]' and an HTTP endpoint 'POST /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/action_plans/plan_template_sections', but these do not explain what the tool actually does—e.g., what a 'section' is, what it contains, or how it functions within action plans. The purpose remains vague beyond the basic verb 'Create'.

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. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'create_company_action_plan_template_item', 'create_action_plan_section'), there is no indication of how this tool fits into the broader context or what specific scenarios it addresses. The agent is left without any usage instructions or distinctions from related tools.

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