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 for behavioral disclosure. The description mentions 'Create program' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't specify permissions required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on conflict, or what the response contains. The API path suggests it creates programs within companies, but behavioral details like rate limits, side effects, or error conditions are completely absent.

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 but under-specified. 'Create program' is too brief to be helpful, while the bracketed API information adds technical context but doesn't improve usability. The structure isn't front-loaded with actionable information for an AI agent. It's concise but not effectively structured for tool selection.

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 creation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'program' represents in this context, what the creation entails, what permissions are needed, or what the tool returns. The API path provides some context but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral and usage information needed for proper tool invocation.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation through the schema alone, though the description contributes nothing additional about parameter usage, constraints, or relationships.

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 program' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It lacks a clear verb-resource combination and doesn't distinguish this tool from other 'create' tools in the sibling list (e.g., create_project, create_program). The bracketed text '[Company Admin/Company Settings] POST /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/programs' provides API context but doesn't clarify the business purpose.

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. While the bracketed text hints at Company Admin/Company Settings context, it doesn't explicitly state prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or compare with similar tools like 'create_project'. There's no mention of when this tool is appropriate versus other creation tools in the extensive sibling list.

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