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 states 'Create' implying a write/mutation operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on conflict, or the response format. The API endpoint hint suggests it's a POST, 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 but under-specified. It consists of a tautological phrase, a bracketed context, and an API endpoint. While not verbose, it fails to provide essential information, making it inefficient in conveying purpose. The structure is front-loaded but lacks substance.

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 'rounding configuration' is, its impact, or the expected outcome. The schema covers parameters well, but the overall context for the agent to use the tool effectively is lacking.

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., 'Time increment available for Timecard Entries. Options are 5, 6, 10, and 15'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema is comprehensive, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as it doesn't detract value.

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 rounding configuration' is a tautology that restates the tool name. It adds minimal context with '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' and the API endpoint, but does not specify what a 'rounding configuration' is, what it's used for, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'update_rounding_configuration' or 'show_rounding_configuration'.

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 (e.g., company existence), when it's appropriate, or what happens if a configuration already exists. Sibling tools include 'update_rounding_configuration' and 'delete_rounding_configuration', but no differentiation is offered.

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