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 mentions 'POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/drawing_uploads', which implies a write operation, but doesn't disclose critical behaviors like required permissions, idempotency (hinted by the Idempotency-Token parameter but not explained), file format constraints (PDF only per schema), or multipart/form-data requirements. The description adds minimal context beyond the endpoint.

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—two short phrases—and front-loaded with the core action. However, it wastes space on the API endpoint path, which is redundant for tool invocation. The '[Project Management/Drawings]' category adds minor context but doesn't earn its place in a tool description meant for AI agents.

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 (10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the tool's purpose, behavior, or output, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema. For a mutation tool with file uploads and multiple parameters, more context is needed—such as what a 'drawing upload' represents, how it integrates with the system, or what happens after creation.

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 fully documents all 10 parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., files vs. upload_uuids), usage patterns, or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't 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 drawing upload' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It mentions the API endpoint path and category '[Project Management/Drawings]', but fails to specify what the tool actually does (e.g., upload drawings to a project, create a drawing upload record). The verb 'Create' is generic and doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'create_drawing_upload_v1_1' or other drawing-related tools.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or when to choose this over sibling tools like 'create_drawing_upload_v1_1' or other drawing management tools. The agent is left with no usage context beyond the tool name.

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