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. The description only states 'Create Drawing' and includes an endpoint, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether this is a mutating operation, what permissions are required, if there are side effects, rate limits, or what the response might look like. It fails to provide essential context for a creation 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 very concise with just a few words and an endpoint reference. It is front-loaded with the action 'Create Drawing'. However, the endpoint details might be considered extraneous for an AI agent, and the description could be more structured to include purpose and context, but it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 of a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a 'Drawing' is in this context, what the creation entails, or what the expected outcome is. The lack of behavioral details and usage guidelines makes it inadequate for an AI agent to understand how to use this tool effectively.

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 parameters (drawing_area_id, number, title, drawing_discipline). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides. It does not explain the purpose of these fields or their relationships. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It mentions the category '[Project Management/Drawings]' and endpoint 'POST /rest/v1.1/drawing_areas/{drawing_area_id}/drawings', but does not clearly state what the tool does beyond the obvious creation action. It lacks differentiation from sibling tools and does not specify the resource being created beyond 'Drawing'.

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 does not mention prerequisites, context, or any sibling tools that might be related (e.g., other drawing-related tools in the list). There is no indication of when this tool is appropriate or when other tools should be used instead.

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