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 states 'Create Company Upload' and includes an HTTP method (POST), implying a write operation, but does not disclose critical traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, error handling, or what 'Upload' entails (e.g., file creation vs. metadata). This leaves the agent with insufficient context for safe invocation.

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 an endpoint reference. It is front-loaded but under-specified, as it lacks explanatory content. However, it avoids redundancy and waste, earning a high score for brevity despite its insufficiency in other dimensions.

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 does not explain the tool's purpose beyond the name, lacks behavioral context, and offers no guidance on usage. For a creation tool with multiple parameters and no output schema, this leaves the agent poorly equipped to understand the tool's role or expected outcomes.

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 in the schema (e.g., 'company_id' as a unique identifier, 'response_filename' for storage service). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description neither compensates nor detracts.

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/v1.1/companies/{company_id}/uploads' restates the tool name ('Create Company Upload') and adds only technical endpoint details. It lacks a specific verb-resource-action explanation (e.g., what 'Upload' entails) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_company_upload' or 'create_project_upload_v1_1', making it vague beyond the name.

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 does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., for file storage in a company), or exclusions. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'create_company_upload', 'create_project_upload_v1_1'), the absence of usage differentiation is a significant gap.

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