Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create' and includes a POST endpoint, implying a write operation, but does not specify permissions required, side effects (e.g., linking items), or error conditions. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the implied mutation, leaving significant gaps for a tool that likely modifies data.

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 concise with a single sentence and endpoint details, but it is not front-loaded with actionable information. It wastes space on tautological phrasing and includes bracketed category text that adds little value. While brief, it could be more structured to highlight purpose upfront.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain what 'Procore item' entails, the nature of the association, or the expected outcome. For a tool that likely involves linking entities in a project management system, 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'Coordination Issue ID', 'Unique identifier for the project.', 'Details of Procore item to be linked to a CoordinationIssue'). The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but the schema is comprehensive, meeting the baseline score of 3 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 Procore Item Association' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal added context. It includes a category '[Project Management/Coordination Issues]' and an endpoint 'POST /rest/v1.0/coordination_issues/{coordination_issue_id}/procore_item_associations', which hints at linking items to coordination issues but lacks a specific verb and resource clarity. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_viewpoint_and_procore_item_association' or 'delete_procore_item_association'.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing coordination issue, or compare it to similar tools like 'create_viewpoint_and_procore_item_association'. Without any usage context, the agent has no basis for selecting this tool appropriately.

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