Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Create image category' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no mention of permissions required, whether this is idempotent, what happens on conflict, rate limits, or what the response contains. The endpoint hint 'POST' confirms it's a creation operation, but that's already implied by 'Create'.

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 5 words plus endpoint hint. It's front-loaded with the core action. However, the bracketed '[Project Management/Photos]' feels like an afterthought rather than integrated information. While efficient, it's arguably too terse given the lack of other guidance.

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?

For a creation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what an 'image category' represents in this system, what happens after creation, or any prerequisites. The endpoint hint adds some technical context but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral and usage information needed for proper tool invocation.

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 all 4 parameters well-documented in the schema itself (project_id, name, private, album_cover_id). The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description.

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 category' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It doesn't specify what an 'image category' is in this system or what creating one entails. While it includes a bracketed hint '[Project Management/Photos]' and the endpoint 'POST /rest/v1.0/image_categories', these don't clarify the actual purpose beyond the obvious 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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (like 'add_category_to_project', 'create_company_action_plan_type', etc.), there's no indication of how this specific image category creation differs from other category-creation tools or when it's appropriate. The bracketed '[Project Management/Photos]' is ambiguous and doesn't constitute usage guidance.

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