Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Create PDF Template Config' and includes a POST endpoint, implying a write operation, but does not clarify permissions, side effects, or response format. The description lacks critical details like whether this is idempotent, what happens on failure, or if it affects existing configurations. It adds minimal value beyond the implied mutation.

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, consisting of a single sentence with the tool name and API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core action but lacks structural elements like bullet points or separate clauses. While efficient, it could be more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what a PDF template config is, how it is used, or what the tool returns. The absence of behavioral details and output information leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's full context.

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., 'Unique identifier for the company' for company_id). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. However, since the schema is well-documented, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 PDF Template Config' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It adds the API endpoint '[Core/Documents] POST /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/pdf_template_configs', which provides some technical context but does not explain what a PDF template config is or what creating one entails. It fails to distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create_pdf_export_for_a_commitment_change_order_v2_0' or 'create_pdf_export_for_a_prime_contract_v2_0', 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. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid company_id, or relate it to other PDF-related tools in the sibling list. 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.