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 only states 'Create Company Currency Configuration' without disclosing any behavioral traits like whether this is a write operation, permission requirements, side effects, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single sentence but includes redundant API path information ('POST /rest/v2.0/companies/{company_id}/currency_configuration') that doesn't add value for tool selection. It's under-specified rather than concise, failing to provide necessary operational context.

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 creation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what a currency configuration entails, what happens after creation, error conditions, or relationship to other currency tools. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively.

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 all parameters (company_id, currency_display, currency_iso_code, multicurrency_enabled). The description adds no additional meaning or context about these parameters beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for 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 Currency Configuration' which indicates the verb (create) and resource (company currency configuration), but it's somewhat generic. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_project_currency_configuration' or 'update_company_currency_configuration', leaving ambiguity about scope and uniqueness.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or differentiate from similar tools like 'update_company_currency_configuration' or 'create_project_currency_configuration', leaving the agent with no usage context.

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