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' (implying a write/mutation) and includes 'POST', but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, or typical response structure. The mention of 'multipart/form-data' for attachments in the schema is not surfaced in the description, leaving key implementation details hidden.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core action. However, the inclusion of the HTTP method and endpoint is redundant for an MCP tool definition where invocation is abstracted. While concise, it could be more structured by separating functional intent from implementation 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 (4 parameters including nested objects and attachments), absence of annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain the purpose of a 'contract payment' in the domain, what the 'contract_payment' object should contain, or what the tool returns. For a creation tool with significant input structure, more context is needed for effective use.

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 clear parameter descriptions in the schema itself (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project', 'Contract Payment object'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since the schema is well-documented, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—no extra value, but no gap either.

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 Contract Payment. [Construction Financials/Commitments] POST /rest/v1.0/contract_payments' restates the tool name ('Create Contract Payment') without adding specificity about what a contract payment entails. It includes a category hint and HTTP method, but lacks a clear verb+resource distinction from siblings like 'create_commitment_contract' or 'create_payment_application_owner_invoice_for_prime_contract'. This is borderline tautological with minimal added value.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., existing contract), exclusions, or related tools for viewing or updating payments. Without any usage context, an agent cannot determine appropriate invocation scenarios.

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