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 meeting topic' and includes a POST endpoint, implying a write operation, but does not disclose required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what the response contains. The mention of multipart/form-data for attachments in the schema is not echoed in the description, leaving key behavioral traits undocumented.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence and endpoint details, avoiding unnecessary verbosity. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative—every sentence should earn its place, but here the sentence adds minimal value beyond the name. The structure is front-loaded but lacks substance.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters including nested objects), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the creation process, expected inputs beyond schema, or what the tool returns. For a mutation tool with no structured behavioral hints, the description should provide more context to guide effective use.

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%, so the schema fully documents parameters like project_id, meeting_id, meeting_topic object, and attachments. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the structure of meeting_topic or attachment requirements. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to heavily.

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 resource ('meeting topic') but lacks details on what a meeting topic entails or how it differs from other meeting-related tools like 'create_meeting' or 'update_meeting_topic'. This minimal statement fails to clearly articulate the tool's purpose beyond its name.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing meeting), exclusions, or sibling tools like 'create_meeting' or 'update_meeting_topic'. Without any usage context, an agent cannot determine appropriate scenarios for invocation.

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