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 of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a creation operation via POST, implying a write action, but doesn't mention required permissions, potential side effects (e.g., impact on contract totals), or error conditions. This is a significant gap 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 a single, efficient sentence that includes the core action, resource, context, and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the essential information, though the endpoint detail might be more technical than necessary for an agent's understanding.

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 creating a line item (a write operation with nested objects), the description is inadequate. No annotations exist, and there's no output schema, so the agent lacks information on success responses, error handling, or the structure of created items. This leaves 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 in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the structure of the 'line_item' object. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('Prime Contract line item'), making the purpose explicit. It also provides context with '[Construction Financials/Prime Contracts]' and includes the HTTP method and endpoint, which adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_prime_contract_line_item_v2_0', which is a minor gap.

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, such as the sibling 'create_prime_contract_line_item_v2_0'. It lacks context on prerequisites, constraints, or typical scenarios for creating a line item, leaving 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.