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' implying a write operation, but does not disclose required permissions (e.g., Company Admin role), side effects (e.g., emails sent unless 'skip_emails' is set), rate limits, or what the response contains. The API endpoint hint suggests a POST request, but behavioral traits like idempotency, error handling, or data validation are omitted, leaving significant gaps.

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 with a single sentence and the API endpoint, avoiding unnecessary verbosity. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it could be more structured by separating purpose from technical details, and the inclusion of the endpoint might be redundant if the agent already has schema context.

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 (29 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It does not explain what a 'generic tool item' is, its role in the system, or the expected outcome. For a creation tool with many optional fields and no behavioral hints, more context is needed to guide effective usage, such as typical use cases or required vs. optional parameters beyond the schema.

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 29 parameters documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, such as examples, constraints, or relationships between fields. However, since the schema is comprehensive, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not detract but also adds no value.

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 Item' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It adds the context '[Company Admin/Custom - Configurable Tools]' and the API endpoint, but does not specify what a 'generic tool item' is, what it represents in the system, or what resources it creates. It fails to distinguish this from sibling tools like 'create_generic_tool' or other creation tools, leaving the purpose vague beyond the literal name.

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 (e.g., needing an existing generic tool), exclusions, or related tools like 'batch_update_generic_tool_items' or 'update_generic_tool_item'. Without such context, an agent cannot make informed decisions about tool selection.

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