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 mentions 'POST' and hints at multipart/form-data for attachments, which implies a write operation, but does not disclose critical behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, error handling, or rate limits. The multipart note is useful but insufficient 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 with two sentences: one stating the purpose and one providing API details. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, the API endpoint detail, while informative, could be considered extraneous for an AI agent if the schema already covers the path.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool with nested objects, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on return values, error conditions, authentication needs, and how the tool fits into broader workflows. The multipart note for attachments is helpful but does not compensate for missing behavioral context.

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 already documents parameters well. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides. It mentions the API path but does not explain parameter semantics, such as the structure of 'list_template' or usage of 'attachments'. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 'Create Company Checklist Template' which is a clear verb+resource combination, indicating it creates a checklist template for a company. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_project_checklist_template' or 'create_a_project_checklist_template_from_a_company_checklist', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific tool.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description includes a category tag '[Project Management/Inspections]' and an API endpoint, but these do not offer usage context or exclusions. Without explicit when/when-not instructions, the agent lacks direction.

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