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 task' which implies a write operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the task is immediately active, what happens on failure, or any side effects. The description is minimal and lacks critical behavioral context.

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 with just one sentence. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Create project task') and includes the API endpoint. While efficient, it may be overly terse given the lack of other helpful information. Every word earns its place, but more context could be beneficial.

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 that this is a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'project task' entails in this context, what the expected response looks like, or any error conditions. For a tool that creates resources, more completeness is needed to guide proper usage.

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 thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 task' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It mentions '[Preconstruction/Estimating]' and the API endpoint, but doesn't clearly explain what type of task is being created or what distinguishes it from other task-related tools. The purpose is stated but remains vague.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description includes '[Preconstruction/Estimating]' which hints at context, but doesn't explicitly state when this tool is appropriate or what other tools might be used for similar purposes. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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