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 meeting topic' which implies a write operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on duplicate creation, or the response format. The endpoint hint ('POST') confirms it's a mutation, but no further details are 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 concise with no wasted words, consisting of a single sentence that includes the action, category, and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it lacks necessary detail for a mutation tool, making it under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a 'meeting topic' is, what the 'meeting_topic' object should contain, or what the tool returns. The schema covers parameters, but the overall context for using the tool is insufficient.

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 (e.g., 'The ID of the Project the Meeting Topic belongs to'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema itself is well-documented. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 topic' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It mentions the category '[Project Management/Meetings]' and endpoint 'POST /rest/v1.0/meeting_topics', but fails to explain what a 'meeting topic' is or what this creation entails. Compared to sibling tools like 'create_meeting' or 'create_meeting_topic_v1_1', it does not distinguish itself.

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 (e.g., needing a meeting or project context), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'create_meeting_topic_v1_1'. The agent is left 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.