Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states it's a POST operation, implying a write action, but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., notifications), error handling, or rate limits. The mention of 'multipart/form-data' for attachments is a technical note but not a comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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, but includes extraneous details like the endpoint path and content-type note for attachments, which are more technical than helpful for an AI agent. It avoids redundancy but could be more streamlined for clarity.

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 resource with nested objects and attachments, and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain the expected response, error conditions, or the significance of punch items in project management, leaving critical gaps for tool invocation.

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. The description adds no semantic context beyond the schema, such as explaining the structure of the 'punch_item' object or the purpose of 'run_configurable_validations'. However, with high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden.

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' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It mentions the category '[Project Management/Punch List]' and endpoint 'POST /rest/v1.1/punch_items', but does not clarify what a 'Punch Item' is or what the creation entails, leaving the purpose vague compared to siblings like 'create_punch_item_comment' or 'add_attachments_to_punch_item'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing project, or differentiate from similar tools like 'create_punch_item' (without versioning) or tools for updating or managing punch items, leaving 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.