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 the action is a POST request, implying a write operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it sends notifications, if it's idempotent, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant gaps 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 concise with two parts: the action and the HTTP method/endpoint. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, the platform context in brackets could be integrated more smoothly, but it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool with 4 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, output, error handling, and integration context. The agent would struggle to use it effectively without additional information beyond the basic action.

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 fully documents parameters like 'company_id', 'developer_app_id', etc. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, not even hinting at relationships (e.g., 'company_id' identifies the target). Baseline 3 is appropriate 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 states the action ('Create installation request') and provides context with '[Platform - Developer Tools/App Marketplace]', which clarifies the domain. However, it does not specify what an 'installation request' entails (e.g., requesting installation of an app for a company) or distinguish it from sibling tools, which are mostly unrelated to app installations. This makes it clear but somewhat vague.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the platform context but does not specify prerequisites, conditions, or related tools. Given the sibling list includes many 'create' tools, there is no differentiation, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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