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 for behavioral disclosure. The description only states 'Create project insurance' without indicating that this is a write operation (implied by 'Create'), what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. For a creation tool with 18 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is critically insufficient.

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?

While concise (one sentence plus API path), the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The API path '[Core/Directory] POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/insurances' is technical detail that doesn't help an AI agent understand the tool's purpose or usage. The single sentence 'Create project insurance' fails to provide necessary context, making brevity a liability.

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 tool's complexity (18 parameters, creation operation, no annotations, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what 'project insurance' means in this context, what the expected outcome is, or any behavioral aspects. For a creation tool with many parameters and no structured guidance, the description should provide much more context about the domain and operation.

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 all 18 parameters documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description. The description does not compensate or add meaning, but the schema adequately covers parameters.

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 insurance' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. It provides a verb ('Create') and resource ('project insurance'), but lacks specificity about what 'project insurance' entails or how it differs from sibling tools like 'create_company_insurance' or 'create_project_vendor_insurance'. It does not clearly distinguish itself from alternatives.

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 (e.g., existing project/vendor), exclusions, or sibling tools like 'create_company_insurance' or 'update_project_insurance'. Without any usage context, the agent has no basis for selecting this tool appropriately.

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