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 Material' and includes a POST endpoint, implying a write operation, but fails to disclose critical traits: required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or the expected response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 brief and front-loaded with the action, but it wastes characters on redundant information like the API endpoint and generic category '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' without adding value. It could be more concise by focusing on domain-specific meaning rather than structural 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 the complexity of a creation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits, usage context, and what the tool returns, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it correctly in a real-world scenario.

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 descriptions for all parameters (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project', 'Unit of measure for the material'). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, but the schema does the heavy lifting, meeting the baseline for high 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 Material. [Project Management/Field Productivity] POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/materials' is tautological—it restates the tool name 'create_material' and adds only generic context and an API endpoint. It does not specify what 'Material' means in this domain or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'bulk_create_materials' or 'create_a_new_time_and_material_entry', leaving the purpose vague beyond the basic verb.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing project or time & material entry), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'bulk_create_materials' or 'create_a_new_time_and_material_entry', leaving the agent with no usage context.

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