Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Create' and a POST endpoint, implying a write operation, but gives no details on permissions required, side effects (e.g., if it affects other items), idempotency, error conditions, or response format. This leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

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—two brief sentences with no fluff. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative; it wastes space on a URL path that adds little value for an AI agent. It is front-loaded with the core action but lacks necessary elaboration, so it scores slightly above minimal for brevity.

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 (a creation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what an 'inspection template item' entails, what happens after creation, or any system constraints. Without annotations or output schema, the description fails to provide sufficient context for safe and effective use.

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 documents all parameters (e.g., company_id, name, type). The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the 'type' field's possible values or how 'position' affects ordering. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 Inspection Template Item' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It adds a category '[Project Management/Inspections]' and a URL path, but does not specify what an 'item' is (e.g., a question, section, or field) or what it means to create one. It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_company_inspection_template_item_reference' or 'create_project_inspection_template_item_reference', leaving the purpose vague.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing inspection template), constraints, or related tools like 'update_company_inspection_template_item' or sibling creation tools. Without any usage context, an agent cannot make informed decisions.

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