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 states 'Create Injury' and includes an HTTP method (POST), implying a write operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it triggers notifications, if it's idempotent, or what happens on success/failure. The description lacks critical context for a mutation tool with 27 parameters.

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 Injury.' and '[Project Management/Incidents] POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/incidents/injuries'. It is front-loaded with the action, but includes extraneous API endpoint details that may not aid an AI agent. However, it avoids redundancy and is efficiently structured in a single line.

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 (27 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the tool's role in incident management, dependencies on other tools (e.g., 'create_incident'), expected output, or error conditions. For a creation tool with many parameters and no structured behavioral hints, more context is needed to guide proper usage.

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 27 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters (e.g., 'incident_id' is required, linking to an existing incident). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description does not compensate with additional insights.

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 Injury. [Project Management/Incidents] POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/incidents/injuries' states the action ('Create Injury') and resource ('Injury' under 'Incidents' in 'Project Management'), but it is vague about what 'Injury' entails (e.g., a record of a workplace injury). It does not distinguish from siblings like 'create_incident' or 'create_accident_log', which are listed among sibling tools, leaving ambiguity in scope.

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. Sibling tools include 'create_incident', 'create_accident_log', 'create_near_miss', and 'create_property_damage', but the description does not mention any of these or specify prerequisites like requiring an existing incident. Usage is implied only by the context '[Project Management/Incidents]', which is insufficient for clear differentiation.

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