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 Contract' and includes an API endpoint, implying a write operation, but does not mention required permissions, potential side effects (e.g., data persistence), rate limits, or error handling. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core action ('Create Prime Contract'), followed by category and endpoint. It avoids unnecessary words, though the endpoint detail may be extraneous for an agent. Overall, it is efficiently structured.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, including nested objects), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the purpose of the 'prime_contract' object, what constitutes a valid creation, or the expected outcome, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 parameter descriptions (e.g., 'project_id' as a unique identifier, 'prime_contract' as an object). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema provides sufficient detail, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 Prime Contract. [Construction Financials/Prime Contracts] POST /rest/v1.0/prime_contract' restates the tool name ('Create Prime Contract') and adds only a category label and API endpoint. It does not specify what 'create' entails (e.g., initializing a contract with specific fields) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'create_prime_contract_v2_0' or 'create_prime_contract_line_item', making it vague and tautological.

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 (e.g., 'create_prime_contract_v2_0' or 'create_prime_contract_line_item'), nor any prerequisites or context for creation. The description lacks any usage instructions, leaving the agent without direction.

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