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. It states 'Create Project Role', implying a write operation, but does not specify required permissions, potential side effects, or error conditions. The HTTP method 'POST' hints at creation, but no further behavioral details are given, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 with two parts: the functional statement and technical endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core action, and there is no redundant information. However, the technical details could be integrated more smoothly, but overall it is efficient.

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 of creating a project role (a mutation with nested objects), the description is insufficient. No annotations exist, and there is no output schema, so the description should explain expected outcomes or errors. It fails to provide necessary context for safe and correct usage, making it incomplete for this tool type.

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 descriptions for 'project_id' and 'project_role'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints for the 'project_role' object. Since the schema is well-documented, 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 Role' states the verb and resource, but it is vague and lacks specificity. It does not explain what a 'Project Role' entails or how it differs from similar tools like 'add_role_to_project' or 'create_company_role_v2_0' in the sibling list. The addition of '[Core/Project] POST /rest/v1.0/project_roles' provides technical context but does not clarify the functional 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. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and there are no explicit comparisons to sibling tools like 'add_role_to_project' or 'create_company_role_v2_0'. This leaves the agent without direction on appropriate usage.

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