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' and includes a POST endpoint, implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, error handling, or what happens on success/failure. The mention of 'multipart/form-data' for payload is useful but 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 with two sentences: one stating the purpose and category, and another providing the HTTP method and endpoint. It's front-loaded with the core action, though the second sentence is more technical than explanatory. No wasted words, but could be more user-friendly.

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 5 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what an 'item reference' is, its purpose in the system, expected outcomes, or error conditions. The agent lacks context to use this tool effectively beyond parsing the input schema.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by implying the tool creates an 'item reference' and mentions 'multipart/form-data' for the payload, but doesn't explain parameter relationships or semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 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 the action ('Create') and resource ('Company Inspection Template Item Reference'), but it's vague about what an 'item reference' actually is. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_company_inspection_template_item' or 'create_project_inspection_template_item_reference', leaving ambiguity about scope and relationships.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing inspection template and item) or comparisons to sibling tools like 'create_company_inspection_template_item'. Without this, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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