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' (implying a write/mutation) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on duplicate policy numbers, or typical response format. The API endpoint hint ('POST') suggests a write, but no safety or operational details are included, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 short phrases with no wasted words. However, it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The structure is front-loaded with the tool name, but the API endpoint detail, while concise, doesn't add meaningful value for an AI agent. It earns a 4 for brevity but loses points for lacking 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?

Given the complexity (18 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the purpose, usage, behavior, or output. For a creation tool with many parameters, more context is needed—like what the tool returns or common errors. The high parameter count and mutation nature demand better guidance.

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 no parameter semantics beyond the schema—it doesn't explain relationships (e.g., effective_date vs. expiration_date) or provide examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 Insurance. [Core/Directory] POST /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/insurances' restates the tool name and adds only API endpoint details. It lacks a specific verb-resource combination explaining what 'Create Company Insurance' actually does (e.g., 'Creates a new insurance record for a company with details like policy number, effective date, etc.'). It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_company_vendor_insurance' or 'create_project_insurance'.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., company_id must exist), exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'create_company_vendor_insurance' or 'create_project_insurance'. 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.