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 set' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about required permissions, whether this is idempotent, what happens on conflict, rate limits, or what the response contains. The API path hint adds minimal technical context but no behavioral insight.

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 brief phrases. While under-specified, it wastes no words. The inclusion of the API path provides technical context efficiently. However, the front-loaded information ('Create drawing set') is too vague to be immediately helpful.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'drawing set' represents in this system, what happens after creation, or any prerequisites. The API path provides some context but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral and usage information needed for a mutation operation.

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 three parameters (project_id, name, date) with basic descriptions. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's 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 set' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It lacks specificity about what a 'drawing set' is in this context and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'create_drawing_area' or 'create_drawing_upload'. While it includes a category hint '[Project Management/Drawings]' and API path, these don't clarify the tool's unique purpose.

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. With numerous sibling tools related to drawings (e.g., create_drawing_area, create_drawing_upload, create_drawing_v1_1), there's no indication of when this specific creation tool is appropriate. The API path hint doesn't substitute for usage context.

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