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' which implies a write/mutation operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether it sends notifications, what happens on failure, or the expected response format. The description is too sparse to inform the agent about the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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 ('Create meeting') with no wasted words, and includes a category tag '[Project Management/Meetings]' and endpoint 'POST /rest/v1.1/projects/{project_id}/meetings' which are useful for context. However, it is arguably too brief, bordering on under-specification, but the structure is front-loaded and efficient.

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 nested objects (meeting, attachments) and no annotations or output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what a 'Meeting object' entails, how attachments are handled, or what the tool returns. For a mutation tool with significant input structure, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description neither compensates nor detracts.

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 merely restates the tool name. It lacks specificity about what kind of meeting is being created (e.g., project meeting, calendar event) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'create_meeting' (without version suffix) or other creation tools. It provides minimal value beyond the 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 a valid project_id), exclusions, or related tools. Given the many sibling tools, this omission leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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