Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions 'POST' implying a write operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on success/failure, or any side effects. The description is minimal and lacks essential behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise—a single line with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative, which slightly reduces its score. It is front-loaded but lacks substance.

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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a hazard is, what the creation process involves, or what the response contains. For a tool that creates resources, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 company_id, name, and active parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since the schema is well-documented, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as it doesn't detract from understanding.

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 Hazard. [Project Management/Incidents] POST /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/hazards' restates the tool name ('Create Hazard') and adds only the HTTP method and endpoint path. It does not specify what a 'Hazard' is in this context or what the creation entails, making it vague and tautological beyond the name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools list includes many create operations (e.g., create_incident, create_near_miss), but the description does not differentiate this tool from them or specify any prerequisites or context for hazard creation.

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