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' and includes a POST endpoint, implying a write operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The mention of 'multipart/form-data' for payload is useful but buried in the schema, not the description. The description adds minimal value beyond the implicit POST method.

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 is front-loaded with the tool name, but it wastes space by repeating the name and adding an API endpoint without explanatory value. It could be more concise by omitting the endpoint or integrating it meaningfully. The structure is simple but not optimally informative.

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 (5 required parameters, nested object, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It does not explain the purpose, behavior, or output, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool. The agent would struggle to use this correctly without relying heavily on the schema alone.

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 5 parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. However, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as 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 is a tautology that restates the tool name ('Create Project Inspection Template Item Reference') and adds only the API endpoint path and category tag. It does not specify what the tool actually does in functional terms, such as what a 'reference' is or what resource it creates. It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_company_inspection_template_item_reference' or other creation tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or any sibling tools for comparison. It lacks any usage instructions or constraints, leaving the agent with no directional cues.

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