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' (implying a write/mutation operation) and includes the HTTP method 'POST', which suggests creation. However, it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the creation is idempotent, what happens on conflicts, rate limits, or what the response contains. The description is minimal and fails to provide necessary context 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?

The description is concise (one sentence fragment) but under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It front-loads the tool name but wastes space on the HTTP path which isn't directly helpful for an AI agent. It could be more structured with actual usage context.

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 (a creation/mutation tool), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'Contributing Condition' is, what it's used for, or what the tool returns. The agent is left guessing about the tool's purpose and behavior, which is inadequate for a mutation operation.

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-specific information beyond the schema. Since the schema already fully documents parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to 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 Contributing Condition. [Project Management/Incidents] POST /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/contributing_conditions' restates the tool name ('Create Contributing Condition') without adding meaningful specificity. It mentions the domain context ('Project Management/Incidents') and HTTP method/path, but lacks a clear explanation of what a 'Contributing Condition' is or what the tool actually does beyond the tautological name. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_contributing_behavior' or 'update_contributing_condition'.

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 prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or compare with sibling tools like 'create_contributing_behavior', 'update_contributing_condition', or 'bulk_update_contributing_conditions'. The agent receives no help in selecting this tool over others.

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