Procore MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create' which implies a write/mutation operation, but provides no information about permissions required, whether this is a destructive operation, what happens on success/failure, rate limits, or what the response contains. The HTTP endpoint mention adds minimal technical context but doesn't address behavioral traits needed 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?

While technically concise, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The single sentence 'Create Configurable Field Sets' wastes space on tautology, and the bracketed category and HTTP endpoint add clutter without meaningful explanation. The structure isn't front-loaded with useful information for an agent trying to understand the tool's purpose.

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 (12 parameters, 4 required, nested objects) and absence of both annotations and output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what configurable field sets are, what 'create' entails behaviorally, or what the tool returns. For a complex creation tool with no structured safety or output information, the description should provide much more context about the operation and its implications.

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 12 parameters thoroughly with descriptions and enums. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 Configurable Field Sets' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It includes a bracketed category '[Company Admin/Custom - Configurable Tools]' and an HTTP endpoint, but fails to explain what configurable field sets are, what they're used for, or what 'create' entails. The description lacks a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes this from sibling tools.

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's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or comparison with sibling tools (like 'create_custom_field' or 'update_configurable_field_set'). The bracketed category suggests it's for company admin/custom tools, but this is vague and doesn't help an agent decide when this specific creation tool is appropriate.

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