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' implying a write operation, but does not disclose required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The API endpoint hint suggests a POST request, but this is insufficient for understanding behavioral traits like side effects or error handling.

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 a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose, followed by a platform tag and API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids unnecessary verbosity. However, the inclusion of the API endpoint, while informative, could be considered extraneous for an AI agent's primary needs.

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 (5 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on what a 'webhook trigger' entails, expected outcomes, error conditions, or how it integrates with the platform. For a creation tool with no structured safety or output information, more context is needed to ensure reliable 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%, with all parameters documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints for 'resource_name' or 'event_type'. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, 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 states 'Create Project Webhooks Triggers', which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_company_webhooks_triggers_v2_0' or 'bulk_create_project_webhooks_triggers_v2_0', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific tool versus alternatives. The purpose is understandable but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 a platform tag and API endpoint, but these do not offer usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Without explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, the agent lacks actionable guidance.

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