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 states 'Create' (implying a write/mutation operation) and includes the HTTP method 'POST', which hints at creation. However, it fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate entries, or the expected response format. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 and front-loaded with the core action and resource. It includes an HTTP method and endpoint, which is useful for technical context. However, the bracketed domain context ('Construction Financials/Work Breakdown Structure') could be integrated more smoothly, and the lack of behavioral or usage details means it's efficient but potentially under-specified.

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 4 parameters (including a nested object) and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key aspects like error conditions, success responses, or dependencies (e.g., needing 'company_id' and 'standard_cost_code_list_id'). For a mutation tool in a domain with many siblings, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. It mentions the tool's purpose but does not explain how parameters like 'view' affect the creation process or the role of 'standard_cost_code' object. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('Standard Cost Code'), with additional context in brackets ('Construction Financials/Work Breakdown Structure'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_standard_cost_code_list' by specifying the creation of a code rather than a list. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'create_cost_code' or other similar tools, which slightly limits clarity.

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 lacks any mention of prerequisites, such as needing an existing standard cost code list, or when to choose this over other creation tools like 'create_cost_code' or 'create_wbs_code'. Without such context, 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.