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 states 'Create resource' which implies a write/mutation operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on conflicts, or what the response contains. The HTTP method 'POST' is mentioned, but this is technical detail rather than behavioral guidance for an AI agent.

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 but under-specified. 'Create resource' is a minimal two-word phrase that wastes no words, but the bracketed domain context and HTTP endpoint details are appended without integration. While brief, it lacks the front-loaded clarity needed for an AI agent; the structure does not effectively communicate purpose or usage.

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 a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a 'resource' entails in this context, what fields the resource object should contain, what the tool returns, or any error conditions. For a mutation tool with nested objects, this leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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 descriptions for both parameters: 'project_id' as 'The ID of the Project the Resource belongs to' and 'resource' as 'Resource object'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the 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 resource' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'create_resource_v1_1' without adding meaningful context. It lacks specificity about what type of resource is being created (e.g., schedule resource in project management) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'create_resource' or 'create_resource_v1_1' in the list. The bracketed text '[Project Management/Schedule (Legacy)]' provides some domain context but is not integrated into a clear purpose statement.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing project), constraints, or relationships to sibling tools like 'create_resource' or 'list_resources_v1_1'. The agent receives no usage instructions beyond the minimal action implied by the name.

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