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 mentions 'POST' which implies a write operation, but doesn't specify required permissions, whether this creates a permanent record, what happens on duplicate entries, or error conditions. The URL format suggests it's project-scoped, but this isn't explicitly stated in the description text.

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 extremely concise (one sentence plus URL), but this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified. While there's no wasted text, the single sentence 'Create project Person' fails to provide adequate context. The URL fragment adds technical detail but doesn't improve usability for an AI agent.

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?

For a mutation tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'project Person' is, what the creation entails, what permissions are needed, or what the response contains. The technical URL fragment doesn't compensate for missing operational context needed by an AI agent.

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 9 parameters well-documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in 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 doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given complete schema documentation.

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 Person' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal added context. It lacks a specific verb and resource definition beyond the name, failing to distinguish it from sibling tools like 'create_a_person' or 'create_company_person'. While it includes a URL fragment '[Core/Directory] POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/people', this is technical detail rather than clarifying purpose.

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. With sibling tools like 'create_a_person' and 'create_company_person' present, there's no indication of how this tool differs (e.g., project-specific vs. company-wide person creation). No prerequisites, constraints, or usage context are mentioned.

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