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. 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this creates a permanent record, what happens on duplicate attempts, or what the response contains. The HTTP method 'POST' is mentioned, but no other behavioral context is given.

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 very concise with just one sentence plus API endpoint context. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the bracketed '[Project Management/Meetings]' feels like metadata that could be structured better, and the HTTP method 'POST' might be more appropriate in annotations rather than the description.

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?

For a creation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'meeting attendee record' represents in the system, what happens after creation, or what the response looks like. The API endpoint information is useful but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral and contextual information needed for proper tool invocation.

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 four parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with any extra context about parameter relationships or usage.

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 states 'Create meeting attendee record', which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_meeting' or 'update_meeting_attendee_record', and the bracketed context '[Project Management/Meetings]' is somewhat vague about the specific domain.

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's no mention of prerequisites, when this should be used instead of other meeting-related tools, or any exclusions. The sibling list includes many meeting-related tools, but no differentiation is provided.

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