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 indicates a POST operation (implying creation/mutation) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The 'Legacy' tag hints at deprecation but isn't explained.

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 but poorly structured. It front-loads the action but includes extraneous details like the API path and legacy tag without clear value. It could be more focused on user-facing information rather than implementation details.

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 four parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context like what a lookahead is, expected outcomes, error handling, or how it fits into project management workflows, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.

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 the four parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, but the baseline is 3 since 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 'Create Lookahead. [Project Management/Schedule (Legacy)] POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/schedule/lookaheads' states the action (create) and resource (lookahead), but is vague about what a 'lookahead' is. It includes a legacy tag and API path, which adds some context but doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_lookahead_v1_1' or 'create_lookahead_task'.

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 doesn't mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage instructions beyond the basic action.

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