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. It states 'Create Punch Item' implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This is a significant gap 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 with 'Create Punch Item' and includes a category '[Project Management/Punch List]' and endpoint 'POST /rest/v1.0/punch_items', which is efficient. However, it could be more front-loaded by clarifying the purpose upfront, but it's not wasteful.

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 (4 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a punch item is, the expected response, error handling, or behavioral context. For a creation tool with no structured support, this leaves critical 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 documents all parameters (project_id, punch_item, etc.). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as explaining the structure of 'punch_item' object or 'attachments' handling. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 Punch Item' states the action (create) and resource (punch item), which is clear. However, it's vague about what a punch item is (e.g., a defect or task in construction/project management) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_punch_item_v1_1' or 'create_punch_item_comment', leaving ambiguity.

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 lacks context about prerequisites, when it's appropriate, or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., 'create_punch_item_v1_1'), leaving the agent without usage direction.

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