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 Lookahead' which implies a write operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on conflict, or the format of the created resource. The mention of 'Legacy' hints at deprecation but is unclear.

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 under-specified. It consists of a single sentence fragment and an API endpoint. While not verbose, it lacks essential information, making it inefficient in conveying purpose. The structure is front-loaded but incomplete.

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 inadequate. It fails to explain what a 'Lookahead' is, the context of its creation, or the expected outcome. The 'Legacy' tag suggests deprecation but without clarification, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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', 'Lookahead start date, in project time zone'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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/v1.1/projects/{project_id}/schedule/lookaheads' is vague. It restates the tool name ('Create Lookahead') without specifying what a 'Lookahead' is or what the tool actually does. The addition of a category and API endpoint provides some context but does not clearly articulate the tool's purpose or distinguish it from sibling tools.

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 does not mention any prerequisites, context for creation, or related tools. Given the many sibling tools (e.g., 'create_lookahead', 'create_lookahead_task'), the lack of differentiation is a significant gap.

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