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 mentions 'POST' implying a write operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on conflict, or the format of the response. The description lacks essential context for a creation tool, leaving the agent with insufficient information about its behavior.

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 two parts: the tool name and an HTTP method/path. However, it lacks front-loaded clarity—the first part is a tautology, and the second part is technical but not explanatory. While brief, it under-specifies rather than being efficiently informative, earning a mediocre score.

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 (8 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It does not explain what a 'monitoring resource' is, its role in 'Construction Financials/Budget', or what the tool returns. For a creation tool with significant input requirements, 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 each parameter documented in the schema (e.g., 'project_id' as 'Unique identifier for the project'). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, which is appropriate here 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 Monitoring Resource. [Construction Financials/Budget] POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/monitoring_resources' restates the tool name ('Create Monitoring Resource') with minimal elaboration. It adds a category hint ('Construction Financials/Budget') and the HTTP method/path, but does not specify what a 'monitoring resource' is or what it does in concrete terms. It fails to distinguish this from sibling tools like 'create_budget_line_item' or 'create_resource', leaving the purpose vague.

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. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'create_budget_line_item', 'create_resource', 'create_monitoring_resource' itself), there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or distinctions. This absence makes it difficult for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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