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 operation) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on duplicate entries, or the response format. The API endpoint hint suggests a POST request, but this is insufficient for understanding the tool's behavior in an agent context.

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 parts: a restatement of the tool name and an API endpoint. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The structure is front-loaded but lacks substantive content, making it less helpful despite its 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 10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what a 'Company Person' is, the context of creation, or the expected outcome. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context to guide the agent, but it does not.

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 detailed descriptions for all 10 parameters (e.g., 'ID of the company', 'The First Name of the Company Person'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema itself is comprehensive. Given the high coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, 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 Person. [Core/Directory] POST /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/people' restates the tool name ('Create Company Person') and adds API endpoint details, but does not specify what a 'Company Person' is or what creation entails. It lacks a clear verb+resource distinction and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_a_person' or 'create_project_person', 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. With sibling tools like 'create_a_person' and 'create_project_person' present, there is no indication of context (e.g., company-level vs. project-level), prerequisites, or exclusions. This absence makes it misleading for an agent to select the correct tool.

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