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. It states 'Create' (implying a write/mutation operation) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on duplicate codes/names, or error conditions. The API endpoint hints at a POST request, but no further behavioral details are included.

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 and front-loaded with the core action. The API endpoint adds technical context but doesn't clutter the purpose. However, the inclusion of the endpoint might be considered slightly extraneous for an agent-focused description.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool with 6 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on success/error responses, side effects, and practical usage context. The agent would struggle to understand the full implications of invoking this tool without additional documentation.

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 already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between parameters like parent_id hierarchy or sub_job_id legacy implications). Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 states the action ('Create Project Segment Item') and provides context ('Construction Financials/Work Breakdown Structure'), but it's somewhat vague about what a 'segment item' actually is. It doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_company_segment_item' or 'create_wbs_code' beyond the project scope implied in the name.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description includes the API endpoint path, which hints at hierarchy (projects/{project_id}/.../segments/{segment_id}/...), but no explicit usage context, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools are given.

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