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 states 'Create' (implying a write/mutation operation) and includes an HTTP method (POST), which suggests it's not read-only. However, it lacks critical details: required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on success/failure (e.g., returns the created object), rate limits, or side effects. The description is minimal and leaves the agent guessing about the tool's behavior.

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 (one sentence with an endpoint) and front-loaded with the action. However, it wastes space on the endpoint path (redundant for an AI agent) and lacks meaningful structure—it could be more informative without losing brevity. It's not overly verbose but under-specified, balancing conciseness with insufficient detail.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'Harm Source' is, the expected output (e.g., returns the created harm source object), error conditions, or how it fits into the incident management context. With no output schema, the description should clarify return values, but it fails to do so, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 clear descriptions for each parameter (company_id, name, active). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema—it doesn't explain relationships (e.g., that 'active' defaults to true) or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately documents parameters without needing description augmentation.

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 Harm Source. [Project Management/Incidents] POST /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/incidents/harm_sources' restates the tool name ('Create Harm Source') and adds only a category and endpoint path. It lacks a specific verb-resource-action explanation (e.g., what a 'Harm Source' is, what creating it entails) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'bulk_update_harm_sources' or 'delete_harm_source'. This is a tautology with minimal added context.

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 (e.g., incident management), or sibling tools like 'bulk_update_harm_sources' or 'list_harm_sources'. Without any usage instructions, the agent has no basis for selecting this tool appropriately.

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