Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'POST' (implying a write operation) and 'initial_setup' (suggesting one-time initialization), but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is destructive, what permissions are required ('Company Admin/Company Settings' is vague), what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the HTTP method.

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 brief but inefficiently structured. It repeats the tool name verbatim, then adds technical endpoint details that belong in structured metadata. While not verbose, it wastes space on redundant information rather than providing helpful context. The technical details could be more effectively presented elsewhere.

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?

For a write operation ('POST') with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'company classifications' are, what 'initial_setup' means, what the tool actually creates, or what the expected outcome is. The agent would struggle to understand when and how to use this tool effectively given the complexity implied by the sibling tool list.

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 one parameter (project_id) fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description.

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 restates the tool name ('Create Company Classifications For Project') without adding meaningful specificity. It lacks a clear verb-resource-action statement that distinguishes it from sibling tools. The inclusion of '[Company Admin/Company Settings] POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/work_classifications/initial_setup' provides technical context but doesn't clarify what 'company classifications' are or what 'initial_setup' 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (over 1,000 listed), the description offers no context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or differentiation from similar tools. The technical endpoint hint doesn't constitute usage guidance.

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