Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Create RFQ Quote' and includes an HTTP method (POST), implying a write operation, but does not specify permissions required, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The mention of '[Construction Financials/Commitments]' adds minimal domain context but lacks operational details, leaving critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

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: a brief statement and an HTTP endpoint. It is front-loaded with the action ('Create RFQ Quote') and avoids unnecessary verbosity. However, the inclusion of the endpoint details may be redundant if the agent already has structured API information, but it does not waste space.

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 (a creation tool with 4 required parameters including a nested object) and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on what an RFQ quote is, expected input format for 'rfq_quote', return values, error conditions, or domain-specific constraints. The agent is left with significant gaps for correct tool invocation.

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 each parameter (rfq_id, project_id, contract_id, rfq_quote) having basic descriptions in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. According to rules, with high schema coverage (>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 RFQ Quote. [Construction Financials/Commitments] POST /rest/v1.0/rfqs/{rfq_id}/quotes' is vague. It restates the tool name ('Create RFQ Quote') without specifying what an RFQ quote is or what it entails. The addition of '[Construction Financials/Commitments]' provides some domain context but does not clarify the action. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_rfq' or 'create_rfq_response', leaving the purpose unclear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing RFQ), exclusions, or related tools like 'create_rfq' or 'create_rfq_response'. Without any usage context, an agent cannot determine appropriate scenarios for invocation.

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