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 states 'Create compliance document' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on failure. The POST method hint is minimal and doesn't add meaningful context beyond the 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 extremely concise—just one sentence plus an endpoint path. It's front-loaded with the core action. However, the bracketed context '[Construction Financials/Payments]' feels cryptic and could be better integrated or explained. No wasted words, but potentially under-specified.

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 mutation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a compliance document is, what happens after creation, error conditions, or relationship to the invoice_id. The endpoint path adds some context but doesn't compensate for missing behavioral and usage information.

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 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain relationships between company_id, project_id, and invoice_id, or provide examples for document_type or prostore_file_ids. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 states the action ('Create compliance document') and provides a resource context ('Construction Financials/Payments'), but it's vague about what a 'compliance document' entails. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_a_compliance_document_project' or 'create_a_compliance_document_project_v1_0', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific version.

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 bracketed context '[Construction Financials/Payments]' but doesn't explain its significance or differentiate from sibling tools with similar names. There are no explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites mentioned.

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