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 mentions 'POST /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/generic_tools' which implies a write operation (creation), but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like required permissions (though 'Company Admin/Custom' hints at admin rights), whether this is idempotent, what happens on conflict, or what the response contains. The description adds minimal value beyond the implied mutation.

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 brief (one sentence fragment plus a bracketed note and endpoint), which is efficient. However, it's under-specified rather than truly concise—it wastes space on a tautology and endpoint details that don't add value for tool selection. The structure isn't front-loaded with useful information; the most helpful part ('Company Admin/Custom - Configurable Tools') is buried in brackets.

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 (a creation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'generic tool' is in this system, what it's used for, or what the creation entails. Without annotations or output schema, the agent lacks crucial context about behavior and results. The description fails to compensate for these gaps.

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 6 parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema (it doesn't explain any parameters at all). According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description. The description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to since the schema is complete.

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 Generic Tool' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It adds no meaningful clarification about what a 'generic tool' is or what it does. The bracketed text '[Company Admin/Custom - Configurable Tools]' provides some context about permissions and category but doesn't specify the actual action or resource. This leaves the purpose vague and unhelpful for an AI agent.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for creation, or differentiate it from sibling tools (like 'create_generic_tool_item' or other creation tools in the list). An agent would have no idea when this is the appropriate tool to select.

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