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 image' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about permissions required, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, what happens on failure, or the format of the created image. The HTTP method (POST) is mentioned, but that's technical detail rather than behavioral context for an AI agent.

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—just one sentence fragment. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Create image'), though the additional technical details (category and endpoint) are arguably unnecessary clutter. While efficient, it borders on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.

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 4 parameters including nested objects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (image ID? URL? metadata?), error conditions, or prerequisites. For a mutation tool with significant parameter complexity, this leaves too many gaps for an AI agent to use it confidently.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain the relationship between 'upload_uuid' and 'image', or clarify when each approach should be used. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't add enough to raise it.

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 image. [Project Management/Photos] POST /rest/v1.0/images' restates the tool name ('Create image') without adding specificity. It mentions 'Project Management/Photos' and the HTTP method/endpoint, but doesn't clarify what kind of image is created, for what purpose, or how it differs from other image-related tools. This is borderline tautological with minimal added value.

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. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'create_company_upload', 'create_project_upload', 'create_drawing_upload'), there's no indication of when this specific image creation tool is appropriate. The mention of 'Project Management/Photos' is vague and doesn't constitute actionable usage guidance.

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