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 states 'Create Department' implying a write operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on conflict, or the response format. The mention of '[Core/Directory] POST /rest/v1.0/departments' hints at an API endpoint but does not add meaningful context like rate limits or authentication needs.

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 three short phrases, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The first part 'Create Department' is clear, but the rest '[Core/Directory] POST /rest/v1.0/departments' adds technical details without enhancing usability for an AI agent. It could be more front-loaded with practical 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 lacks information on success/error responses, required permissions, and how the department integrates with other entities. The sibling list includes many similar tools, but no context is provided to distinguish this one, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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 'company_id' and 'department' clearly documented in the schema. The description does not add any semantic details beyond the schema, such as explaining the structure of the 'department' object or providing examples. Baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 Department' states the verb and resource, which is clear but minimal. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_a_project' or 'create__company_office', which also create entities. The purpose is vague as it lacks details on what a department entails or its scope.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., within a company), or exclusions. Sibling tools include many other creation tools, but no differentiation is made.

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