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' (implying a write/mutation operation) but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information on permissions required, whether it overwrites existing rates, if it's idempotent, rate limits, or what the response looks like. The HTTP method (POST) is mentioned, but that's structural rather than behavioral guidance for the agent.

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 a single sentence that states the purpose and includes the API endpoint path. It's front-loaded with the action but includes technical details (POST path) that may not add value for an AI agent. While not verbose, it could be more focused on agent guidance rather than API mechanics.

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 (a mutation tool with 4 required parameters) and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like side effects, error conditions, or response format. For a creation tool in a financial context, more context on what 'exchange_rates' entails and the operation's impact is needed.

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 four parameters (company_id, project_id, base_currency_iso_code, exchange_rates). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters—it doesn't explain what 'exchange_rates' should contain (e.g., array of currency pairs with rates) or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('Project Exchange Rates'), with additional context in brackets ('Construction Financials/Currency Configurations'). It distinguishes the tool by specifying it's for creating exchange rates within a project's currency configuration, which differentiates it from sibling tools like 'create_company_exchange_rates' or 'update_project_exchange_rates'. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 (e.g., needing an existing project or currency configuration), when not to use it, or refer to sibling tools like 'update_project_exchange_rates' or 'get_project_exchange_rates'. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

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