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 Permission Template' and includes a POST endpoint, implying a write operation, but does not clarify permissions required, side effects, or response format. The description lacks critical behavioral details like whether it's idempotent, what happens on conflict, or any rate limits, leaving the agent with insufficient information.

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 action and the API endpoint. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, though the tautological first part reduces its effectiveness. The structure is clear, but the content is under-specified rather than efficiently informative.

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, nested objects) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain the purpose, usage, or behavior sufficiently for a creation tool with many parameters. The agent would struggle to understand when and how to use this tool effectively without additional 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 detailed parameter descriptions in the input schema. The description adds no 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 for gaps nor adds extra value.

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 Permission Template' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without elaboration. It adds the API endpoint '[Core/Directory] POST /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/permission_templates', which provides technical context but fails to specify what a permission template is or what it does. No distinction from sibling tools is made, 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, context, or exclusions. With many sibling tools present, the lack of any usage guidelines is a significant gap, making it misleading for an agent trying to select the correct tool.

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