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' implying a write/mutation operation, which is correct, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The description is minimal and lacks essential context for a creation 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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the action and includes the API endpoint, though it could be more structured. It earns a high score for brevity but loses a point for not being optimally informative.

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 (creation tool with nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return value, error handling, or the nature of a 'Direct Cost Item', leaving significant gaps for the agent to operate effectively.

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 'project_id', 'attachments', and 'item'. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since the schema is well-documented, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as it doesn't compensate or detract.

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 Direct Cost Item. [Construction Financials/Direct Costs] POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/direct_costs' restates the tool name and adds a category and API endpoint, but it's vague about what a 'Direct Cost Item' is and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'create_direct_cost_item_v1_1' or 'create_direct_cost_line_item'. It lacks a specific verb+resource+scope explanation.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., within a project), or differentiate from sibling tools, leaving the agent with no usage instructions.

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