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 of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create Contributing Behavior' and includes 'POST', implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or the format of the response. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 parts: a tautological statement and a context/endpoint note. However, it's not front-loaded with useful information—the first part repeats the name, and the second part adds minimal value. While brief, it wastes space on redundancy rather than providing actionable guidance.

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 of a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'Contributing Behavior' is in the context of Project Management/Incidents, what the tool returns, or any error conditions. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively beyond the basic parameters.

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 descriptions for all three parameters (company_id, name, active). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain what a 'Contributing Behavior' is, how the 'name' is used, or the implications of the 'active' flag. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 Contributing Behavior. [Project Management/Incidents] POST /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/contributing_behaviors' is a tautology that restates the tool name ('Create Contributing Behavior') and adds only minimal context about the domain and HTTP method. It lacks a specific verb-resource combination that clearly explains what the tool does beyond its name, and it doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'create_contributing_condition' or other creation 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for when contributing behaviors are needed, or how it differs from similar tools like 'update_contributing_behavior' or 'bulk_update_contributing_behaviors'. The agent is left with no usage instructions.

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