Procore MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create Prime Change Order' but does not clarify if this is a mutative write operation, what permissions are required, whether it triggers workflows or notifications, or any side effects like rate limits. The description is too minimal to inform the agent adequately about behavioral traits.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and context. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be more structured by explicitly stating the tool's purpose. The brevity is appropriate, but it lacks depth that could enhance clarity.

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 31-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return value, error conditions, or critical behavioral aspects like idempotency or required user permissions. For such a significant operation, 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, detailing all 31 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between fields like 'project_id' and 'contract_id'. Since the schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 tool creates a 'Prime Change Order' in the 'Construction Financials/Prime Contracts' context, which provides a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_commitment_change_order' or 'create_prime_change_order_batch', leaving the scope vague regarding what a 'Prime Change Order' entails versus other change order types.

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 lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing contract or project, or when to choose this over other change order creation tools like 'create_commitment_change_order'. This omission leaves 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.