Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Create Company Upload' and a POST operation, implying a write/mutation, but fails to describe critical behaviors: required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, error handling, or what 'upload' means (e.g., file creation, metadata). The HTTP method hint is minimal, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's effects.

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 restated name and technical details (category, HTTP method, endpoint). It is front-loaded but wastes space repeating the name. Every sentence serves a purpose, though it could be more informative; the brevity is efficient but under-specified.

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 (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks explanation of the tool's purpose, behavioral context, usage guidelines, and output expectations. The schema covers parameters well, but without annotations or output schema, the description fails to provide a holistic understanding of this mutation tool, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 parameter descriptions (e.g., 'company_id' as unique identifier, 'response_filename' for storage service). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema's thoroughness justifies the baseline score of 3, as it adequately documents inputs without needing extra explanation in 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 Upload. [Core/File Access & Storage] POST /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/uploads' restates the tool name ('Create Company Upload') and adds only generic category and HTTP method details. It lacks a specific verb-resource-action statement (e.g., 'Upload a file to a company's storage') and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_company_upload_v1_1' or 'create_project_upload', making it vague about what 'upload' entails.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., company existence, permissions), exclusions, or compare to sibling tools (e.g., 'create_company_upload_v1_1', 'create_project_upload'), leaving the agent with no context for selection.

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