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' which implies a write/mutation operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits: no information about required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on conflicts (e.g., duplicate codes), or what the response contains. The endpoint path hints at a REST POST, but no further behavioral context is given.

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 (one sentence plus endpoint), but it is not well-structured or front-loaded with essential information. The endpoint path is included, which may be marginally helpful for debugging but doesn't aid the agent in understanding the tool's purpose or usage. It avoids redundancy but is under-specified rather than efficiently informative.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial context: what a segment item is, how it fits into the Work Breakdown Structure, what the creation entails, and what the output looks like. The endpoint path provides some structural context, but for a mutation tool with no structured safety or output information, this is insufficient.

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 all 6 parameters (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the company', 'Segment Item Code'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description doesn't add or 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 Segment Item' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It adds the context '[Construction Financials/Work Breakdown Structure]' and the endpoint path, but does not clearly articulate what the tool actually does (e.g., what a segment item represents, what fields it creates). It distinguishes from some siblings by specifying 'Company' vs 'Project' segment items, but the purpose remains 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. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., existing company, segment), when not to use it, or what other tools might be relevant (like 'create_project_segment_item' or 'update_company_segment_item' from the sibling list). The agent must infer usage from the endpoint path alone.

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