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 Direct Cost Item' implying a write operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, error handling, or what happens on success/failure. The API path suggests a POST request, but this is not explicitly explained. The description is minimal and misses key behavioral details.

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 two parts: the functional statement and the API path. It is front-loaded with the key action. However, the API path could be considered extraneous for an AI agent's decision-making, slightly reducing efficiency. Overall, it's well-structured and wastes little space.

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 (a creation tool with nested objects), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value, error conditions, or important context like the multipart/form-data requirement for attachments mentioned in the schema. For a mutation tool with no structured safety hints, this leaves significant gaps for the 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%, so the schema already documents the three parameters (project_id, attachments, direct_cost) well. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as example values or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to heavily.

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 Direct Cost Item') and resource ('Direct Cost Item'), which is clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create_direct_cost_item' (without version) or other creation tools, and the inclusion of the API path adds technical detail but not functional differentiation. It's adequate but lacks sibling context.

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 mentions '[Construction Financials/Direct Costs]' which hints at a domain context, but does not specify prerequisites, constraints, or when to choose this over other direct cost-related tools. This leaves the agent without usage direction.

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