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 states 'Create' (implying a write/mutation operation) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether folders can be nested, what happens on duplicate names, or if there are rate limits. The API endpoint hint suggests it's a POST operation, but no further context is given about side effects or constraints.

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 (one sentence plus API endpoint) and front-loaded with the core action. However, it wastes space on redundant API details that don't aid tool selection, and it lacks structure like separating purpose from technical details. It's concise but under-informative rather than efficiently packed with value.

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 6 parameters, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return value (e.g., folder ID or object), error conditions, or how this fits into broader folder management. For a creation tool in a complex system with many sibling tools, more context is needed to use it correctly.

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 fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between parent_id and company_id or custom_field usage). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description doesn't compensate with any additional insights.

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 Folder. [Core/Documents] POST /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/folders' restates the tool name ('Create company Folder') without adding specificity. It includes an API endpoint reference but doesn't explain what the folder is for, what it contains, or how it differs from other folder tools. This is borderline tautological with minimal added value.

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 sibling list includes 'create_project_folder' and 'company_folder_and_file_index', but the description doesn't differentiate this company-level folder creation from project-level folders or explain prerequisites like required permissions or company context.

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