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' implying a write/mutation operation but does not clarify permissions, side effects, or response format. The mention of 'POST /rest/v1.0/file_versions' hints at an HTTP method but lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or success outcomes, resulting in inadequate transparency.

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 sentences, but the second sentence '[Core/Documents] POST /rest/v1.0/file_versions' is cryptic and adds minimal value without explanation. It is front-loaded with the core action but wastes space on unclear technical details, reducing efficiency slightly.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain behavioral traits, return values, or error conditions. The agent lacks sufficient context to invoke the tool correctly, especially regarding file upload methods and project/file prerequisites.

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 fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between 'data' and 'upload_uuid' or usage context. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 file version' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It lacks specificity about what 'create' entails (e.g., uploading a new version of a file) and does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create_project_file' or 'create_company_file_version', leaving the purpose vague.

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, such as when to use 'upload_uuid' versus deprecated 'data' parameter, or how it relates to sibling file creation tools. 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.