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 only states 'Create meeting' and includes an API endpoint, but fails to describe critical behaviors: it does not indicate if this is a mutating operation (implied by 'create'), what permissions are required, whether attachments affect the request format (multipart/form-data), or what the response looks like. The description adds minimal value beyond the name.

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 two parts: 'Create meeting' and '[Project Management/Meetings] POST /rest/v1.0/meetings'. While brief, it lacks necessary detail for a creation tool, making it feel incomplete rather than efficiently structured. The information is front-loaded but insufficient.

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 three parameters (including nested objects and array attachments) and no annotations or output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain the meeting object structure, attachment requirements, or expected outcomes. The agent must rely entirely on the input schema, which, while detailed, lacks guidance on usage and behavior, leaving significant gaps.

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 each parameter (project_id, meeting, attachments). The description does not add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides—it does not explain the structure of the 'meeting' object or clarify attachment handling. However, since the schema is well-documented, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 meeting' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It mentions '[Project Management/Meetings] POST /rest/v1.0/meetings', which provides some context about the API endpoint and category, but does not clearly state what the tool does beyond the obvious verb 'create'. It lacks details like what kind of meeting is created or its purpose, making it vague and minimally informative.

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 is no mention of prerequisites, context, or sibling tools (e.g., other meeting-related tools like 'create_meeting_v1_1' or 'list_meetings'). Without any usage instructions, the agent must infer everything from the tool name and schema alone.

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