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. It states 'Create Group and Move Markups,' implying a mutation operation (create and move), but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks critical behavioral context for a tool with 8 parameters.

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 a single phrase that repeats the tool name, followed by a category tag '[Project Management/Document Markup]' and an HTTP endpoint. The endpoint is redundant with structured data and does not add value. The description is under-specified rather than concise, failing to communicate purpose effectively.

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 (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It does not explain the tool's role in the system, what a 'group' or 'markup' is, or the expected outcome. For a mutation tool with multiple parameters, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself (e.g., 'company_id', 'markup_ids', 'action'). The description adds no additional semantic meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides. It does not explain relationships between parameters like 'source_group_id' and 'markup_ids'. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 Group and Move Markups' is essentially a tautology of the tool name, restating it without adding meaningful clarification. It lacks a specific verb-resource combination that explains what the tool actually does beyond the literal name. No distinction from sibling tools is provided.

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, context, or any sibling tools that might be related (e.g., 'add_a_new_markup' or 'modify_markups'). Usage is entirely implied, leaving the agent without direction.

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