Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states it's a POST operation, implying a write/create action, but lacks critical details: whether it requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on duplicate entries, rate limits, or the expected response format (since no output schema exists). The description is insufficient 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 wastes space on redundant information (the tool name) and includes low-value details like the HTTP method and endpoint path, which are not needed for agent understanding. It lacks a clear, front-loaded explanation of the tool's purpose. While brief, it fails to convey essential information efficiently.

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 7-parameter mutation tool), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address behavioral aspects like side effects, error conditions, or return values. The sibling tools include many create operations, but no differentiation is provided. For a tool that creates geospatial data, more context on its role in the system is needed.

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 each parameter clearly documented in the input schema (e.g., latitude, longitude, timestamp). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain units (e.g., degrees for lat/long, meters for accuracy), format constraints (e.g., ISO timestamp), or relationships between fields. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate schema coverage without description enhancement.

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 Gps Position. [Project Management/Field Productivity] POST /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/gps_positions' is a tautology that restates the tool name ('Create Gps Position') and adds minimal context. It does not specify what 'Gps Position' means in this system (e.g., a location record for field tracking) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'create_location' or 'create_equipment_log'. The purpose is vague beyond the basic verb-noun pairing.

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 a valid company ID), typical use cases (e.g., logging field worker locations), or related tools like 'list_gps_positions' or 'show_gps_position' from the sibling list. Without any usage context, an agent cannot make informed decisions.

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