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. The description only states 'Create Project Folder' without any information about permissions required, whether it's a mutating operation, error conditions, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This is inadequate for a tool that creates resources.

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 brief but poorly structured. 'Create Project Folder. [Core/Documents] POST /rest/v1.0/folders' mixes a simple statement with technical endpoint details that don't belong in a description meant for AI agents. The second part adds no value and wastes space that could be used for better guidance.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the behavioral aspects of a creation tool (e.g., what permissions are needed, what the response contains). For a tool with 6 parameters and mutation capability, this description leaves significant gaps in understanding how to use it correctly.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context about parameters beyond what's in the schema (e.g., explaining relationships between project_id and parent_id). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 Folder' which clearly indicates the action (create) and resource (project folder). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_company_folder' or 'create_folder' (if present), and the additional text '[Core/Documents] POST /rest/v1.0/folders' is technical jargon that doesn't enhance purpose clarity for an AI agent.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or comparison with sibling tools like 'create_company_folder' or other folder-related tools in the list. This leaves the agent without contextual usage information.

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