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. It states 'Create' via POST, implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on duplicate references, or error conditions. The description is minimal and misses key operational details needed for safe invocation.

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 and front-loaded with the action and endpoint, avoiding unnecessary verbosity. However, it could be more structured by separating purpose from technical details, but it efficiently communicates the core in a single sentence without waste.

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 (4 required parameters including a nested object) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the purpose of creating a reference, expected outcomes, or error handling. For a tool with no structured behavioral hints, more context is needed to ensure correct usage.

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 meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the relationship between 'type' and 'payload' or providing examples. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but no extra value is contributed.

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 states the tool creates a 'Project Action Plan Template Reference' with a POST endpoint, indicating a creation operation. However, it's vague about what a 'reference' entails—whether it's a link, attachment, or other association—and doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_action_plan_reference' or 'bulk_create_action_plan_template_references', which are similar in name but may differ in scope or method.

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. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether an action plan template must exist, or when to choose this over bulk creation tools. It mentions a category '[Project Management/Action Plans]' but gives no explicit when/when-not instructions or references to sibling tools for comparison.

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