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 of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create' which implies a write/mutation operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, idempotency (hinted by the 'Idempotency-Token' parameter but not explained), side effects, or error handling. The description adds minimal context beyond the name.

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 parts: a tautological statement and an API endpoint reference. While brief, it is not front-loaded with useful information and includes technical details (API path) that may not aid the agent in tool selection. It avoids verbosity but fails to prioritize actionable content.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain the purpose, usage, or behavior, leaving the agent with insufficient context to invoke the tool correctly. The high parameter count and mutation nature require more descriptive support.

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 input schema (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project', 'The Name of the Distribution Group'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without adding value.

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 Distribution Group' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It lacks a specific verb and resource details, and does not distinguish this tool from its many sibling tools (e.g., 'create_a_single_group', 'create_a_new_group'). The inclusion of '[Core/Directory] POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/distribution_groups' provides API context but does not explain what the tool does in user terms.

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, context, or exclusions, and fails to differentiate it from sibling tools like 'create_a_single_group' or 'create_a_new_group'. Without any usage instructions, the agent cannot make informed decisions.

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