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 'POST /rest/v1.0/punch_items/{id}/comments', implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether comments are editable, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The description adds minimal value beyond the implied HTTP method.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core action. However, it includes redundant information (the HTTP endpoint) that doesn't add value for tool selection, and the category tag '[Project Management/Punch List]' is somewhat useful but not critical. It's efficient but could be more focused.

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 including nested objects), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the comment object's expected structure, attachment handling, error conditions, or return values. For a mutation tool with rich inputs, this leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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 already documents all parameters (id, project_id, comment, attachments). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters—it doesn't explain the comment object structure or attachment upload specifics beyond what's in the schema. 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 states the action ('Create Punch Item Comment') and resource ('Punch Item'), which is clear. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_task_item_comment' or 'creates_an_inspection_item_comment', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific tool versus other comment-creation tools.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., only for punch items), or compare with sibling tools like 'add_attachments_to_punch_item' or 'create_punch_item'. This leaves the agent with no usage context.

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