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 indicates this is a creation operation ('Create') and mentions an endpoint path, but doesn't describe what permissions are needed, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 but not particularly well-structured. The first part 'Create generic tool item response..' is redundant with the name, and the endpoint path information, while potentially useful, is presented without clear separation or explanation. It's concise but could be more effectively organized.

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 this is a creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested object parameter, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'generic tool item response' represents in the system, what the creation entails, or what the expected outcome is. The endpoint path provides some technical context but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral and semantic information.

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 input schema already documents all four parameters with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 response..' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. It adds minimal clarity beyond the name itself, failing to specify what a 'generic tool item response' actually is or what resource it creates. While it includes an endpoint path hint, this doesn't meaningfully explain the tool's purpose in user-facing terms.

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, appropriate contexts, or sibling tools that might be relevant. The endpoint path hint suggests it's for a specific API endpoint but offers no usage context for an AI agent.

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