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 mentions 'POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/specification_uploads', implying a write operation, but does not specify permissions required, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The description lacks critical behavioral details for a mutation tool with 10 parameters.

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 tautological purpose and an HTTP endpoint. However, it's not front-loaded with useful information—the endpoint detail is less helpful than a clear purpose would be. It avoids verbosity but under-specifies, making it moderately efficient but not optimally structured for agent understanding.

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 (10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It fails to explain what a 'specification upload' is, the expected outcome, error conditions, or any behavioral context. For a tool that likely creates a significant resource, more completeness is needed to guide the agent 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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain interactions between parameters like 'files' and 'upload_uuids'). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 upload' is essentially a tautology of the tool name 'create_specification_upload'. It adds minimal clarification beyond the name itself, stating it's for project management/specifications and includes an HTTP method and endpoint, but does not specify what a 'specification upload' entails or what resource it creates. It lacks a clear verb+resource distinction from siblings like 'create_drawing_upload' or 'create_company_upload'.

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, context, or any sibling tools for comparison (e.g., other upload tools in the list). The agent is left without usage instructions, making it difficult to determine appropriate invocation scenarios.

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