Procore MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create Form' and an HTTP POST, implying a mutation but lacking details on permissions, side effects (e.g., whether it sends notifications), rate limits, or error handling. This is inadequate 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 but under-specified. It consists of a tautological phrase and technical details (category, HTTP method, endpoint) that are somewhat useful but not front-loaded with actionable information. It avoids verbosity but fails to earn higher marks due to lack of substantive content.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of a 'Form', the implications of creation (e.g., visibility, attachments handling), or what the tool returns, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 all 7 parameters documented in the input schema (e.g., project_id, name, description). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 where 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 Form. [Project Management/Forms] POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/forms' is a tautology that restates the tool name ('Create Form') and adds minimal context (category and HTTP method). It does not specify what a 'Form' is in this system or what creating one entails, failing to distinguish it from sibling tools like 'create_company_form_template' or 'create_form' in other contexts.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a project_id), constraints, or sibling tools (e.g., 'create_company_form_template' for company-level forms), leaving the agent with no usage context.

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