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 'Create Property Damage' and includes an HTTP method (POST) and endpoint path, which implies a write operation but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on success/failure, or typical response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 extremely concise—just one sentence fragment with an endpoint path. It wastes no words, though it could be argued it's under-specified rather than optimally concise. The structure is front-loaded with the action ('Create Property Damage'), but lacks elaboration.

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 (a mutation tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'Property Damage' record represents, its lifecycle, or what the tool returns. The agent must rely entirely on the input schema and guesswork, which is insufficient for safe and correct 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 9 parameters well-documented in the schema (e.g., 'project_id' as 'Unique identifier for the project', 'description' as 'Description of event in Rich Text format'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 Property Damage. [Project Management/Incidents] POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/incidents/property_damages' restates the tool name ('Create Property Damage') without adding meaningful specificity. While it mentions the resource ('Property Damage') and context ('Project Management/Incidents'), it doesn't clarify what 'Property Damage' entails or how it differs from similar incident-related tools like 'create_incident' or 'create_injury' among siblings. This is borderline tautological.

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. With many sibling tools like 'create_incident', 'create_injury', 'create_near_miss', and 'create_environmental', there's no indication of when property damage is the appropriate incident type to record. 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.