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' (implying a write/mutation) but fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on conflict, or the response format. This is a significant gap 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 concise (one sentence) but under-specified. It wastes characters on the HTTP method and path, which are less helpful for an AI agent than semantic details. It is front-loaded but lacks substance, so it's not fully 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 mutation tool with nested objects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a 'sub job' is, the expected structure of the 'sub_job' object, or the result of creation, leaving critical gaps for the agent.

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 in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema adequately documents 'project_id' and 'sub_job'. 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 'Create Sub Job. [Construction Financials/Work Breakdown Structure] POST /rest/v1.0/sub_jobs' restates the tool name ('Create Sub Job') and adds only domain context and HTTP method. It lacks a specific verb-resource combination explaining what 'sub job' means or what creation entails, making it vague beyond the obvious 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, or sibling tools (e.g., 'list_sub_jobs' or 'delete_sub_job'), 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.