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 mentions 'POST /rest/v1.0/coordination_issues', implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, it includes redundant information like '[Project Management/Coordination Issues]' and 'POST /rest/v1.0/coordination_issues', which adds minimal value and could be more streamlined.

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 creating an issue with nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on the expected structure of 'coordination_issue', error handling, or return values, making it incomplete for effective tool 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 parameters 'project_id' and 'coordination_issue' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating for any gaps.

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 Coordination Issue') and resource ('Coordination Issue'), which is clear. However, it doesn't specify what a 'Coordination Issue' is in this context or differentiate it from similar tools like 'create_a_coordination_issue_rest_v2_0_v2_0' in the sibling list, making it somewhat vague.

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, context, or compare it to sibling tools like 'create_a_coordination_issue_rest_v2_0_v2_0', leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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