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' implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions beyond the hint in brackets, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate names, or what the response contains. The description adds minimal value beyond the implied mutation.

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 but under-specified. The single sentence 'Create Project Region. [Company Admin/Company Settings] POST /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/project_regions' is front-loaded but wastes space on the API endpoint which doesn't help the AI agent. It lacks essential explanatory content.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a Project Region is, what the creation entails, what permissions are needed beyond a hint, or what the tool returns. For a 2-parameter creation tool in a complex system, this leaves significant gaps.

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 clear parameter documentation in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (company_id and name). 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 'Create Project Region' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It lacks specificity about what a 'Project Region' is or what creation entails, and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create_project' or 'create_project_location'.

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 minimal guidance with '[Company Admin/Company Settings]' suggesting administrative context, but offers no explicit when-to-use rules, alternatives, or prerequisites. It doesn't clarify when to choose this over other project creation or configuration tools in the sibling list.

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