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' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this overwrites existing versions, rate limits, or what the response contains. The description is minimal and fails to provide necessary behavioral context.

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 extremely concise with just one sentence plus an API endpoint reference. However, it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The structure is front-loaded but lacks substance.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'file version' represents, what happens when created, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity implied by the nested file_version object, more context is needed for the agent 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 three parameters (company_id, file_id, file_version). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the structure of file_version object. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does 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 file version' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It lacks a clear verb-resource combination and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create_company_file' or 'create_project_file_version'.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparison with sibling tools like 'create_company_file' or 'create_project_file_version'.

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