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 of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create' which implies a write operation, but does not mention permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The description lacks essential behavioral context for a mutation 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 concise with just two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides the API endpoint. There's no wasted text, though it could be more front-loaded with usage context. The structure is efficient for its limited content.

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 mutation tool with 14 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the relationship between parameters (e.g., how amount, quantity, and unit_cost interact), doesn't mention required fields beyond project_id, and provides no information about the return value or error conditions.

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 14 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage through the schema alone, with no additional value from the 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 clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('Direct Cost Line Item'), and provides context about the domain ('Construction Financials/Direct Costs'). However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create_direct_cost_item' or 'create_budget_line_item', which might have overlapping purposes in the same financial domain.

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 the API endpoint but gives no context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing direct cost), exclusions, or typical scenarios for creating a line item versus other cost-related operations.

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