Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Create project' and an API endpoint, lacking details on permissions required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or the nature of the 'project' object. The mention of 'POST' implies a write operation, but no further behavioral context is given, leaving significant gaps.

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 two short phrases, but it is not front-loaded with useful information. The first part ('Create project.') is tautological, and the second part ('[Core/Portfolio] POST /rest/v1.0/projects') includes technical details that may not aid an AI agent. While brief, it lacks effective structure for clarity.

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 project (a write operation with nested objects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain the 'project' object's structure, success/failure responses, or any system constraints. For a tool with significant impact, this leaves the agent underinformed.

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 descriptions for parameters like 'company_id' and 'run_configurable_validations'. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema itself is well-documented. With high coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but the schema carries the burden.

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 project. [Core/Portfolio] POST /rest/v1.0/projects' restates the tool name ('Create project') without adding specificity. It includes an API endpoint and a vague tag ('Core/Portfolio'), but does not clarify what a 'project' entails in this context or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'create_a_project' or 'create_project' variations. This is a tautology with minimal added value.

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 sibling tools like 'create_a_project' and 'create_project' present, the description fails to differentiate this tool's context, prerequisites, or appropriate scenarios. This absence of usage guidelines leaves 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.