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 Generic Tool Status' and includes a POST endpoint, implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions (hinted at by 'Company Admin'), whether this is idempotent, what happens on conflicts, or the expected response format. The description is too sparse to provide meaningful behavioral context beyond the implied creation action.

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's a single sentence fragment that includes the tool name, a context hint ('Company Admin/Custom - Configurable Tools'), and an HTTP endpoint. While it's front-loaded with the core action, it lacks complete sentences and meaningful structure. It avoids waste but fails to provide sufficient informational value, making it more sparse than efficiently concise.

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 of a creation tool with 4 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the purpose, usage context, behavioral implications, or what the tool returns. The sibling tools include related operations like 'list_statuses_for_a_generic_tool' and 'delete_generic_tool_status', but the description doesn't reference these or provide a coherent picture. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this description is inadequate.

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 four parameters (company_id, generic_tool_id, status_name, status) well-described in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., that status_name and status define the new status entry) or provide examples. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 Status' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name with minimal additional context. It mentions 'Company Admin/Custom - Configurable Tools' and a POST endpoint, which provides some scope, but doesn't clearly articulate what the tool actually does (e.g., creates a status entry for a configurable tool in a company context). It lacks a specific verb+resource combination 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 mentions 'Company Admin/Custom - Configurable Tools', which implies an administrative context, but doesn't specify prerequisites, when this operation is appropriate, or what other tools might be related (e.g., update_generic_tool_status or list_statuses_for_a_generic_tool from the sibling list). There's no explicit when/when-not or alternative tool references.

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