Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't mention permissions needed (Company Admin context hinted but not explicit), whether this is idempotent, what happens on duplicate names, or what the response contains. The HTTP method (POST) is mentioned but without behavioral context.

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?

While brief, the description is under-specified rather than concise. The first part 'Create Custom Field' is redundant with the name. The bracketed text is cryptic and doesn't add value. The endpoint path 'POST /rest/v1.0/workforce-planning/v2/companies/{company_id}/custom-fields' is implementation detail that doesn't help an AI agent understand when or how to use the tool.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a custom field is, what system it belongs to, what happens after creation, or any behavioral constraints. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without significant external knowledge.

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 fully documents all 10 parameters. 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, which applies here.

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 Custom Field' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It lacks specificity about what a custom field is or what resource it creates. The bracketed text '[Company Admin/Custom - Configurable Tools]' is unclear and doesn't clarify the purpose.

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. There are sibling tools like 'add_values_to_custom_field' and 'update_custom_field', but the description doesn't differentiate this creation tool from those operations or provide any context about prerequisites or appropriate use cases.

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