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 for behavioral disclosure. The description only states 'Create resource' which implies a write/mutation operation but provides no information about permissions required, whether this is idempotent, what happens on conflict, rate limits, or what the response contains. The HTTP method 'POST' is mentioned but without context about error handling or success responses.

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 with just two words of functional description plus API endpoint information. While under-specified, it's not verbose or poorly structured. The bracketed context and endpoint information are efficiently presented, though the functional description itself is inadequate.

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 2 required parameters (including a nested object), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'resource' represents in this context, what fields the resource object should contain, what permissions are needed, or what the tool returns. The '[Project Management/Schedule (Legacy)]' provides some domain context but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral and usage 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 both parameters ('project_id' and 'resource') having clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 resource' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It doesn't specify what type of resource is being created or what domain this operates in (though the bracketed text '[Project Management/Schedule (Legacy)]' provides some context, it's not integrated into the functional description). The description fails to distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create_resource_v1_1' or other creation tools in the list.

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 sibling tools like 'create_resource_v1_1' and numerous other resource-related tools in the list, there's no indication of when this specific legacy version should be used versus newer versions or other creation tools. The bracketed '(Legacy)' hint is insufficient as explicit usage guidance.

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