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 the action ('Create') and includes an HTTP method ('POST'), implying a write operation, but does not disclose permissions, side effects, error handling, or response format. This leaves significant gaps 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 two parts: the action and an HTTP method hint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though the HTTP detail may be redundant in some contexts. There is no wasted text, making it efficient.

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 purchase order contract with nested objects and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on required permissions, expected response, error conditions, or how to structure the 'purchase_order_contract' object. Without annotations, this leaves the agent poorly informed.

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 clear parameter descriptions in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the structure of 'purchase_order_contract' object or usage of 'attachments'. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose as 'Create Purchase Order Contract' with a category hint '[Construction Financials/Commitments]', which clarifies the verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create_commitment_contract_v2_0' or 'create_work_order_contract', leaving the purpose somewhat vague in context.

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 lacks any mention of prerequisites, context, or comparisons with sibling tools such as other contract creation tools, offering no usage instructions.

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