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' (a write operation) but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information on permissions required, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, what happens on duplicate creation, or the format of the created record. The HTTP method 'POST' is mentioned, but this is technical detail rather than behavioral guidance for an AI agent.

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 plus API path) but under-specified. The first sentence states the purpose minimally; the API path adds technical context but doesn't aid the AI agent. It's front-loaded but lacks substance—every word earns its place, but more content is needed for clarity.

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 18 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'project vendor insurance' is, what the creation entails, or what is returned. For a complex creation tool with many fields, the description should provide more context about the domain and expected outcomes.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying it creates insurance for a project-vendor pair. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., effective_date vs expiration_date) or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the 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 'Create project vendor insurance' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb 'Create' and resource 'project vendor insurance', but lacks detail about what this insurance entails or its purpose. Compared to sibling tools like 'create_company_vendor_insurance', it doesn't clearly differentiate scope beyond 'project' vs 'company'.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing project/vendor), exclusions, or related tools like 'update_project_vendor_insurance' or 'delete_project_vendor_insurance'. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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