Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Create location' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on duplicate data, or error conditions. The API path hint ('POST') confirms it's a creation endpoint, but no additional context is added.

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 extremely concise with two brief parts: 'Create location' and the API path. It's front-loaded with the core action. However, the API path detail, while useful for developers, doesn't add value for an AI agent's tool selection. The description avoids fluff but is under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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 creation tool with a nested object parameter, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'location' resource is, what fields the 'location' object expects, or what the tool returns. Sibling tools like 'create_project' have similar gaps, but this lacks even basic context for a mutation operation.

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: 'project_id' as 'The ID of the Project the Location belongs to' and 'location' as 'location'. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema. Since coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately documents inputs without needing description supplementation.

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 location' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It mentions '[Core/Project] POST /rest/v1.0/locations' which provides API context but doesn't clarify what a 'location' resource represents or what creation entails. Compared to sibling tools like 'create_project' or 'create_person', it lacks distinction in purpose.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a project_id), constraints, or related tools for managing locations. Sibling tools include 'list_locations' and 'update_location', but no comparison or workflow context is given.

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