Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Create' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no mention of required permissions, whether this is idempotent, what happens on duplicate creation, rate limits, or what the response contains. The HTTP method (POST) and endpoint path are provided, but these are technical details rather than behavioral guidance.

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 - a single sentence with the tool's purpose and technical endpoint. However, it's not particularly well-structured for human comprehension, as it mixes natural language with API endpoint syntax. Every word serves a purpose, but the presentation could be clearer.

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?

For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a webhook trigger is, what happens after creation, what permissions are needed, or what the response looks like. The technical endpoint information is useful but doesn't compensate for the lack of behavioral and contextual information needed to use this tool effectively.

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 all parameters documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., that hook_id must reference an existing webhook hook) or provide examples of valid resource_name or event_type values. Baseline 3 is appropriate given complete 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 'Create Company Webhooks Triggers' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. It adds the HTTP method and endpoint path, which provides technical context but doesn't clarify what the tool actually does beyond the obvious 'create' action. It doesn't explain what webhooks triggers are or what resource they belong to.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are sibling tools like 'create_company_webhooks_hook_v2_0', 'create_project_webhooks_triggers_v2_0', and 'bulk_create_company_webhooks_triggers_v2_0', but no indication of when this single-create tool is appropriate versus bulk operations or project-level versus company-level webhooks.

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