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 Environmental' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or the expected response format. The HTTP method (POST) is mentioned, but this is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 (one sentence with an endpoint reference) but under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It wastes space on the obvious (the tool name) and includes technical details (HTTP endpoint) that don't add conceptual value for an AI agent. While brief, it fails to front-load essential information about the tool's purpose.

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 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an 'Environmental' is, what the tool returns, or any error conditions. The agent must rely entirely on the input schema, which, while detailed, lacks the contextual framing needed for safe and correct usage.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with all 11 parameters well-documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how 'incident_id' relates to 'project_id') or provide examples. However, since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 Environmental. [Project Management/Incidents] POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/incidents/environmentals' is a tautology that restates the tool name ('create_environmental') without clarifying what an 'Environmental' resource is or what the tool actually does. It provides a vague category ('Project Management/Incidents') and an HTTP endpoint, but lacks a specific verb+resource explanation that distinguishes it from sibling 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, context, or any sibling tools for comparison. Given the many sibling tools (like 'create_incident', 'create_injury', 'destroy_environmental'), the absence of usage guidelines is a significant gap.

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