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' which implies a write operation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on success/failure, or any side effects. The description is minimal and lacks necessary operational context.

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 with just one sentence containing the tool name, category, and HTTP method. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. While efficient, it may be overly terse given the complexity of the operation.

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?

For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'Potential Change Order' is, what the 'change_order' object should contain, what permissions are needed, or what the tool returns. The HTTP method and category tag provide minimal context but don't compensate for the missing behavioral and operational details.

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 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage from the schema alone, with no additional value from the description.

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 states the action ('Create') and resource ('Potential Change Order'), providing a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what a 'Potential Change Order' entails and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_change_order_request' or 'create_commitment_change_order', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific tool.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description includes a category tag '[Construction Financials/Change Orders]' and HTTP method 'POST', but these don't offer practical usage context or distinguish it from similar sibling tools in the list.

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