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 Cost Item' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no mention of permissions required, whether this is idempotent, what happens on failure, rate limits, or what the response contains. The HTTP method (POST) is shown but not explained in behavioral terms.

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 extremely concise - just one sentence with the endpoint path. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the endpoint path could be considered technical noise rather than helpful context for an AI agent.

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?

For a complex creation tool with 23 parameters, 5 required, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'Cost Item' represents in the domain, what happens after creation, error conditions, or provide any examples. The agent must rely entirely on the input schema without contextual guidance.

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 23 parameters thoroughly. 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 description.

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 'Create Cost Item' which is a clear verb+resource combination, but it's generic and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_direct_cost_item' or 'create_cost_code'. The bracketed '[Preconstruction/Cost Catalog]' adds some domain context but doesn't specify what makes this tool unique compared to other creation tools in the system.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or distinguish this from similar creation tools in the sibling list (like create_direct_cost_item). The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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