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 indicates a creation operation via POST, implying a write/mutation, but does not specify required permissions, potential side effects (e.g., if it overwrites existing insurance), rate limits, or error conditions. The description lacks critical behavioral details needed for safe invocation in a production environment.

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, consisting of a single sentence followed by the API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, the inclusion of the endpoint details may be slightly redundant for an AI agent if the tool name already implies the operation, but it does not waste space unnecessarily.

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 (18 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It does not explain the purpose of creating vendor insurance within a company context, expected outcomes, or error handling. For a mutation tool with many parameters, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively, especially without annotations or output schema.

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 each parameter documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it does not explain relationships between fields like 'effective_date' and 'expiration_date'). Since the schema is comprehensive, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not 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 states the action ('Create') and resource ('company vendor insurance'), which is clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from its sibling 'create_project_vendor_insurance' or other insurance-related tools, leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific one. The inclusion of the API endpoint '[Core/Directory] POST /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/vendors/{vendor_id}/insurances' adds technical detail but does not enhance the functional clarity for an AI agent.

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 company and vendor), exclusions, or related tools like 'create_project_vendor_insurance' or 'create_company_insurance'. Without any usage context, an AI agent must infer when this tool is appropriate, which is insufficient.

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