Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'POST' (implying a write operation) but doesn't clarify permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure (e.g., returns an upload URL). The description is too sparse to inform the agent about the tool's behavior beyond the basic HTTP method.

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 (one sentence) but under-specified—it wastes space on an API endpoint and category tag instead of explaining the tool's purpose. While not verbose, it fails to front-load useful information, making it inefficient despite its brevity.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the upload process, expected outcomes, error conditions, or how it fits into the broader system. For a mutation tool with significant parameters, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'segments' relate to multipart uploads or typical usage patterns). With high schema coverage, 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 Upload. [Core/File Access & Storage] POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/uploads' restates the tool name ('Create Project Upload') without adding meaningful specificity. It includes an API endpoint and category, but lacks a clear verb+resource explanation of what the tool actually does (e.g., initiates a file upload to a project). Compared to siblings like 'create_company_upload' or 'create_drawing_upload', it doesn't distinguish its 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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing project), when it's appropriate (e.g., for uploading files to projects), or how it differs from similar tools like 'create_company_upload' or 'create_attachment_project'. Without any usage context, the agent has no basis for selection.

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