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 fails to mention that this is a write operation (implied by 'Create'), permissions required, potential side effects, or response format. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic 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 with two short phrases, avoiding unnecessary verbosity. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative, as it lacks essential details about the tool's purpose and usage.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool with nested objects, the description is incomplete. It does not address behavioral aspects, error conditions, or provide enough context for safe and effective use, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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%, so the schema documents all parameters well. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the 'vendor' object structure or 'view' enum implications. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 vendor' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It lacks details about what a 'company vendor' entails or the scope of creation, making it vague. While it includes a path '[Core/Directory] POST /rest/v1.0/vendors', this is technical metadata rather than clarifying the purpose.

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, or sibling tools like 'create_project_vendor' or 'update_company_vendor', leaving the agent with no usage instructions.

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