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 only states 'Create' and includes an HTTP method (POST), implying a write operation, but fails to describe critical behaviors: whether this is idempotent, what permissions are required, if it returns the created entity, error conditions, or side effects. The description is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single sentence that repeats the name and adds an API path, which is redundant and not front-loaded with useful information. While concise, it under-specifies by omitting essential context, making it inefficient rather than appropriately brief. Every sentence should earn its place, but this one adds minimal value.

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 4 required parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a 'Business Register' is, the purpose of creating one, expected outcomes, or error handling. For a mutation tool with no structured safety or output information, this leaves significant gaps for an 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%, with clear parameter descriptions (e.g., 'ID of the Company Vendor', 'Entity Type' with enum). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema itself is well-documented. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden, though the description could have clarified relationships (e.g., 'id' vs. 'company_id').

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 Business Register' restates the tool name with minimal additional context. It specifies the action ('Create') and resource ('Company Vendor Business Register'), but lacks specificity about what a 'Business Register' entails or how it differs from similar tools. Compared to sibling tools like 'create_company_vendor' or 'update_company_vendor_business_register', the distinction is unclear, making it a tautological restatement of 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 (e.g., existing vendor), related tools (e.g., 'create_company_vendor' for vendor creation first), or scenarios where this is appropriate. Without any usage context, an agent cannot determine when this tool is the correct choice.

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