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. It states 'Create Specification Set' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on conflict, or what the response contains. The HTTP method 'POST' is included, which hints at creation, 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 with three short phrases: 'Create Specification Set. [Project Management/Specifications] POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/specification_sets'. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, and the additional context is minimal. However, the inclusion of the HTTP endpoint is somewhat redundant since the agent doesn't need to know the exact API path, making it slightly less efficient.

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 no annotations and no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'Specification Set' is, its role in project management, or what the tool returns upon success. Without annotations or output schema, the agent lacks critical information about the mutation's behavior and result, leaving significant gaps for correct 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%, so the schema fully documents the three parameters (project_id, name, date). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain the significance of 'name' or 'date' in the context of a specification set. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 Specification Set' states the action and resource, but it's vague about what a 'Specification Set' is. It adds '[Project Management/Specifications]' for context, but doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'create_specification_section_for_a_project' or 'create_specification_area_v2_1'. The purpose is clear at a high level but lacks specificity about the resource being created.

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 many sibling tools related to specifications (e.g., 'create_specification_section_for_a_project', 'create_specification_area_v2_1'), there's no indication of how this tool fits into the workflow or what distinguishes it. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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