Procore MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that this is a write operation (implied by 'Create'), what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on success/failure, or any side effects. The description lacks any behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 (one sentence with a tag and endpoint), but it's not well-structured for clarity. It front-loads the tool name but wastes space on an API endpoint that doesn't help the agent understand the tool's purpose. While brief, it lacks effective communication of key information.

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 (11 parameters, 4 required) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a Lookahead Task is, how it fits into project management, what the expected output is, or any error conditions. For a creation tool with many parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter clearly documented (e.g., 'project_id: Unique identifier for the project'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 Task. [Project Management/Schedule (Legacy)] POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/schedule/lookahead_tasks' restates the tool name ('Create Lookahead Task') without providing a clear, specific purpose. It adds a category tag and API endpoint, but does not explain what a 'Lookahead Task' is or what this creation entails. This is a tautology with minimal added value.

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. There are no explicit instructions on prerequisites, context, or comparisons with sibling tools (e.g., 'create_lookahead', 'update_lookahead_task', 'delete_lookahead_task'). This leaves the agent without any usage direction.

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