Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Create drawing area' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, side effects, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The API path hint suggests it's a POST operation, but this is insufficient for understanding the tool's behavior in 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?

The description is extremely concise with just two parts: 'Create drawing area' and the API path hint. While under-specified, it wastes no words. The structure is front-loaded with the core action, though the API path might be better placed elsewhere.

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 creation tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a drawing area is, what happens after creation, error conditions, or relationship to other drawing tools. The API path provides some technical context but doesn't compensate for the missing operational guidance.

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 parameter documentation in the schema (project_id, name, description). The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in 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 'Create drawing area' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It mentions the resource ('drawing area') but lacks details about what a drawing area is or what creation entails. The API path hint '[Project Management/Drawings] POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/drawing_areas' provides some context but doesn't clarify the purpose beyond the name.

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, or sibling tools (like 'create_drawing_area_v1_1' or 'list_drawing_areas'). Without any usage instructions, an agent cannot determine appropriate invocation scenarios.

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