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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create Incident' and an HTTP POST, implying a write operation but failing to describe critical behaviors: required permissions, whether the creation is irreversible, rate limits, or what the response contains (e.g., success/failure, incident ID). For a mutation tool with 28 parameters, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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 with two parts: 'Create Incident.' and '[Project Management/Incidents] POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/incidents'. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative—the first part is tautological, and the second adds minimal technical context without explaining purpose or usage. While brief, it lacks substantive content that earns its place.

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 (28 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the tool's role in incident management, required inputs beyond the schema, potential side effects, or expected outcomes. For a creation tool with many parameters and no structured behavioral hints, the description fails to provide adequate context for an agent to use it 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%, with detailed parameter descriptions in the input schema (e.g., 'project_id' as a unique identifier, 'description' as the incident description). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 Incident. [Project Management/Incidents] POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/incidents' restates the tool name ('Create Incident') and adds only a category label and HTTP method/endpoint. It lacks a specific verb-resource combination explaining what 'Create Incident' entails (e.g., creating a safety or project incident record) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'create_accident_log' or 'create_safety_violation_log', leaving the purpose vague beyond the tautological name restatement.

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 (e.g., needing a project_id), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'create_accident_log' or 'create_safety_violation_log'. Without any usage context, an agent cannot determine appropriate scenarios for invocation.

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