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 any behavioral traits: no information about required permissions, whether this is idempotent, what happens on conflicts, rate limits, or what the response contains. The description is minimal and fails to provide necessary behavioral context for a creation tool.

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 (one sentence plus API path) but under-specified. While it's not verbose, it fails to provide essential information that would help an agent. The API endpoint inclusion is useful but doesn't compensate for the lack of functional explanation. It's structured but incomplete rather than efficiently concise.

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 this is a creation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'currency configuration' is, what it controls, or what the creation enables. For a financial configuration tool with multiple parameters including enums and overrides, more context is needed about the domain and expected outcomes.

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 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how currency_iso_code interacts with exchange_rate_override) or provide examples. With complete schema coverage, the baseline 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't add value but doesn't contradict either.

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 'Create Project Currency Configuration' which indicates a creation action on a currency configuration resource. However, it's vague about what a 'currency configuration' entails and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_company_currency_configuration_v2_0' or 'update_project_currency_configuration'. It provides the API endpoint path but lacks specificity about the resource being created.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing existing company and project), doesn't differentiate from sibling currency configuration tools, and offers no context about typical use cases or constraints. The agent must infer usage from the parameters alone.

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