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 'Create' implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or typical response format. The API path suggests it's a POST request, but no further behavioral context is given.

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 three elements: action, category, and API path. It's front-loaded with the purpose. However, the API path is redundant with the tool name/context and could be considered extraneous. Overall, it's efficient but could be more focused on user guidance.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a complex tool with 6 parameters (including nested objects), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'Requested Change' is, what the tool returns, or any side effects. For a creation tool in project management, more context on the domain and expected outcomes is needed.

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, task_id, change_reason, other_change, task, notes). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance understanding of parameter usage or relationships.

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 'Create Requested Change' which indicates a creation action, but it's vague about what a 'Requested Change' is (e.g., schedule change, task modification). It includes a category '[Project Management/Schedule (Legacy)]' and API path, which adds some context but doesn't fully clarify the resource or purpose. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'creates_requested_change' or 'review_requested_changes'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing task), exclusions, or compare it to similar tools like 'creates_requested_change' or 'update_requested_change' (if they exist). The API path hints at project and task context but doesn't provide usage instructions.

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