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. 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this is idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the response contains. The API path hints at hierarchy (company→project→inspection→reinspection) but this isn't explained.

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 two words plus an API path. While under-specified, it wastes no words. The API path provides additional structural context, though it's not part of the natural language description. The brevity is efficient but comes at the cost of completeness.

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?

For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what data is needed beyond IDs, what a reinspection is, what gets created, or what the tool returns. The API path adds some context but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral and output information.

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 three parameters (company_id, project_id, inspection_id) clearly documented as unique identifiers. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but the schema is comprehensive, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 Reinspections' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It mentions the resource ('reinspections') but lacks details about what a reinspection is or what creation entails. The API path provides context but doesn't clarify the purpose beyond the name.

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_checklist_inspection', 'create_inspection_log', etc.), there's no indication of how reinspections differ from other inspection-related creations or when this specific tool is appropriate.

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