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 only states the action ('Create') and includes a platform tag and API endpoint, but fails to describe critical behaviors such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens upon successful creation (e.g., returns a hook ID). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 but under-specified. It wastes space on redundant information (restating the name) and includes an API endpoint that may be useful but doesn't add explanatory value. It lacks front-loaded clarity and could be more efficiently structured to convey purpose and usage.

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 complexity of creating a webhook (a mutation with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is inadequate. It fails to explain the return value, error conditions, or behavioral context needed for safe invocation. The API endpoint hint is insufficient to compensate for these gaps.

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 fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, not even clarifying the purpose of key fields like 'namespace' or 'destination_headers'. However, with complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as 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 Webhooks Hook' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It lacks a specific verb and resource definition, making it vague about what the tool actually does beyond the obvious 'create' action. No sibling differentiation is provided.

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 does not mention prerequisites, context, or any sibling tools like 'create_company_webhooks_hook_v2_0' or 'list_project_webhooks_hooks_v2_0' for comparison. Usage is entirely implied 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.