Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Create Instructions' and includes an HTTP POST method, implying a write operation, but does not address permissions, side effects (e.g., notifications), rate limits, or response format. The description fails to provide essential behavioral context for a mutation tool, scoring a 2 due to minimal disclosure.

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: a tautological statement and a technical endpoint. However, it lacks effective structure—critical details like purpose and usage are missing, making it under-specified rather than efficiently informative. A score of 3 reflects adequate brevity but poor informational value.

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 tool's complexity (16 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the resource being created, expected outcomes, error conditions, or integration with sibling tools. For a mutation tool with rich parameters, this leaves significant gaps for the agent, resulting in a score of 2.

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 16 parameters documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it does not explain relationships between fields like 'instruction_type_id' and 'status'). Since the schema carries the full burden, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description neither compensates nor detracts.

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 Instructions. [Project Management/Daily Log] POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/instructions' is tautological—it restates the tool name 'create_instructions' and adds only a generic category and HTTP method. It does not specify what 'Instructions' are in this context (e.g., site instructions, work directives) or distinguish this from sibling tools like 'create_instruction_types'. A 2 is assigned because it minimally indicates a creation action but lacks specificity.

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 an existing project), constraints, or related tools like 'list_instructions_on_a_project' or 'update_instruction'. Without any usage context, the agent cannot make informed decisions, warranting a score of 1.

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