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 'Create' implying a write/mutation operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The API endpoint hint suggests a POST request, but no further details are given. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that includes the tool's action, domain context, and API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the key information ('Create Item Response Set') and avoids unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the endpoint from the functional description.

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 of a creation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial information about behavioral traits, usage context, and what the tool returns. The domain hint and API endpoint add some value, but for a mutation tool, this is insufficient to guide an agent 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%, so the schema already documents all parameters (company_id, name, active, memberships_attributes). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between 'memberships_attributes' and responses. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Create Item Response Set' which indicates a creation action, but it's vague about what an 'Item Response Set' is. It adds '[Project Management/Inspections]' for context and includes the API endpoint, which helps clarify the domain, but it doesn't fully distinguish the tool from siblings like 'create_a_response' or 'create_a_response_in_the_specified_item_response_set'. The purpose is understandable but not specific about the resource's role.

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. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing checklist item, or differentiate it from sibling tools like 'create_a_response'. Without any usage context, the agent must infer based on the tool name alone.

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