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 '[Company Admin/Company Settings]', hinting at permission requirements, but does not clarify if this is a destructive operation, what the response format might be, or any rate limits. The description is too sparse to adequately inform the agent about behavioral traits beyond the basic creation action.

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 but under-specified, consisting of a tautological phrase and a bracketed context note. While it avoids unnecessary verbosity, it fails to front-load essential information effectively. The structure is minimal but does not optimally guide the agent due to the lack of substantive content.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what an 'office' entails, the expected response, error conditions, or how it fits into the broader system. The sparse description leaves significant gaps for the agent to infer, making it inadequate for reliable tool invocation.

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 both parameters ('company_id' and 'office'). The description does not add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it does not explain what fields 'office' object should contain or provide examples). Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately documents the parameters without extra help from the description.

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 office' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It lacks a clear verb+resource distinction and does not differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., 'create_company_user_v1_0', 'create_company_vendor'), which also create company-related entities. The mention of '[Company Admin/Company Settings] POST /rest/v1.0/offices' provides some context but is not integrated into a coherent purpose statement.

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 includes '[Company Admin/Company Settings]', which implies a permission or context requirement, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other company creation tools in the sibling list). There is no guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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