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. It only states 'Create RFQ Response' with a POST endpoint, implying a write operation but lacking details on permissions, side effects (e.g., if it triggers notifications), rate limits, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that includes the action, domain hint, and HTTP method. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could be more structured (e.g., separating guidance). There is no wasted text, earning a high conciseness score.

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, nested objects, and no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on what an RFQ response entails, behavioral traits, or return values. Without annotations or an output schema, the agent is left with significant gaps in understanding how to use this tool effectively.

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 parameter descriptions (e.g., 'RFQ ID', 'Unique identifier for the project.'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema is comprehensive, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as it doesn't detract from understanding.

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 Response. [Construction Financials/Commitments] POST /rest/v1.0/rfqs/{rfq_id}/responses' restates the tool name ('Create RFQ Response') and adds minimal context (domain hint and HTTP method). It lacks a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like 'create_rfq' or 'create_rfq_quote', making the purpose vague 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after an RFQ is created), or sibling tools like 'create_rfq' or 'create_rfq_quote', leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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