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. It mentions 'POST /rest/v2.0/companies/{company_id}/webhooks/hooks', which implies a write operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The description lacks essential 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 sentences: one stating the purpose and one providing the HTTP method and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, the second sentence is somewhat redundant with the tool name and could be more informative about behavior rather than just repeating API details.

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 write operation with 5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a webhook hook is, what the tool returns, error conditions, or required permissions. For a mutation tool with no structured safety hints, this leaves 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 already documents all 5 parameters (e.g., 'company_id' as 'Unique identifier for the company'). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 tool creates a company webhook hook, which is a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('Company Webhooks Hook'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_project_webhooks_hook_v2_0' or 'create_webhooks_hook', leaving ambiguity about when to use this company-level version versus project-level or generic versions.

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. The description includes a platform tag ('Developer Tools/Webhooks') and an HTTP endpoint, but these do not indicate usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling tools like 'create_project_webhooks_hook_v2_0' exist, but no distinction is made.

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