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' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this initiates a multipart upload process (given 'segments' parameter), rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The endpoint path suggests a REST POST, but no further behavioral context is given.

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 brief (one sentence plus technical tags) but under-specified rather than concise. The technical endpoint information is useful for debugging but doesn't help an AI agent understand when or how to use the tool. While not verbose, it fails to convey essential information efficiently.

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?

For a 6-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'project upload' is, what happens after creation, error conditions, or relationship to other upload tools. The agent would struggle to use this correctly without significant trial and error.

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 semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (like how segments relate to size) or provide usage examples. With high schema coverage, baseline 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' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It doesn't specify what is being uploaded (files? data?), to what kind of 'project' resource, or what the outcome is. The bracketed '[Core/File Access & Storage]' and endpoint path provide technical context but don't explain 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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to uploads and file management (like create_company_upload_v1_1, create_drawing_upload_v1_1, create_attachment_project), there's no indication of when this specific project upload tool is appropriate versus those others.

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