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 link' and includes a REST endpoint hint ('POST /rest/v1.0/links'), implying a write operation, but does not disclose critical traits like required permissions (Company Admin/Project-Level Configuration is ambiguous), whether the operation is idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on failure. The description adds minimal context beyond the implied mutation.

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 ('Create link. [Company Admin/Project-Level Configuration] POST /rest/v1.0/links') but under-specified. It wastes no words, yet the bracketed text is unclear and not well-integrated. While brief, it lacks effective front-loading of key information, making it minimally structured.

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 is a mutation (create operation) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value, error conditions, or behavioral nuances. The sibling tools include 'delete_link' and 'update_link', but the description does not help an agent understand this tool's role in context, leaving significant gaps for a creation tool.

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 clear parameter descriptions in the input schema (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project', 'The user-facing title of the link'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema adequately covers the parameters, meeting the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 link' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It does not specify what type of link is being created (e.g., a hyperlink in a project management system) or what resource it acts upon, making it vague and minimally informative beyond the name itself.

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. While it mentions '[Company Admin/Project-Level Configuration]', this is unclear as a usage guideline and does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or sibling tool comparisons. The sibling tool list includes 'delete_link' and 'update_link', but the description does not differentiate from these.

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