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. The description only states 'Create Near Miss' and an HTTP endpoint, with no information about permissions, side effects, rate limits, or what the operation does beyond the name. It fails to disclose any behavioral traits, making it inadequate for a mutation tool.

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 a single line with minimal information: 'Create Near Miss. [Project Management/Incidents] POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/incidents/near_misses'. While concise, it is under-specified—the first part is tautological, and the second part is technical endpoint detail that doesn't aid the agent. It lacks front-loaded clarity and wastes space on redundant or low-value details.

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 (10 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a 'Near Miss' is, the incident management context, required permissions, or what the tool returns. The schema covers parameters, but the description fails to provide necessary context for 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 all 10 parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it does not explain relationships between parameters (e.g., 'affected_person_id' vs 'affected_party_id') or usage context. Baseline 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 Near Miss. [Project Management/Incidents] POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/incidents/near_misses' states the action (Create) and resource (Near Miss), but is vague about what a 'Near Miss' entails. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the resource type, but lacks specificity about the incident context. The description is minimal and relies on the tool name for meaning.

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 mentions the category '[Project Management/Incidents]' but does not specify prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Given the many sibling tools (e.g., 'create_incident', 'create_injury'), there is no differentiation, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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