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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'POST' and 'multipart/form-data' for PDF uploads, which hints at a write operation and content-type requirements. However, it fails to disclose critical traits like required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, error handling, or rate limits. The description adds some technical context but is insufficient for a mutation tool with no 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 concise and front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence provides necessary technical details about the API endpoint and content-type for PDF uploads. There is no wasted verbiage, and each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more structured for readability.

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 the complexity of a creation tool with nested objects and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on expected outcomes (e.g., what is returned upon success), error conditions, authentication requirements, and how the 'form_template' object should be structured. The technical hint about multipart upload is helpful but insufficient for full contextual understanding.

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 clear descriptions for parameters like 'company_id' and detailed instructions for 'fillable_pdf'. The description does not add meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain the structure of 'form_template' object or provide examples). Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the 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 states the action ('Create Company Form Template') and resource ('Company Form Template'), which is clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_form' or 'create_company_checklist_template', leaving the purpose somewhat vague in context. The inclusion of the API endpoint adds technical detail but doesn't enhance functional clarity.

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 lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., company existence), use cases, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'create_form' or 'create_company_checklist_template'. This leaves the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios.

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