Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Create' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this is an idempotent operation, what happens on failure, or what the response contains. The endpoint format suggests it creates within a specific company/project context, but this is insufficient for a mutation tool with 32 parameters.

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 - just two brief phrases. While under-specified for such a complex tool, it's not wordy or poorly structured. Every element (tool name, category, endpoint) serves a purpose, though more content would be beneficial.

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 complex mutation tool with 32 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a Prime Contract is, when to use it, what permissions are needed, what the response looks like, or how it differs from other contract creation tools. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters but doesn't compensate for missing behavioral and contextual information.

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 the schema already documents all 32 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in 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 'Create Prime Contract' is a tautology that restates the tool name. It adds the category '[Construction Financials/Prime Contracts]' and the API endpoint, but doesn't specify what a Prime Contract is or what creation entails beyond the obvious. It doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'create_commitment_contract_v2_0' or 'create_purchase_order_contract'.

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. With many sibling tools for creating different contract types (commitment, purchase order, work order), the description offers no context about what a Prime Contract is for, prerequisites, or when it's appropriate. The API endpoint hint doesn't help with usage decisions.

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