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 'Create' (implying a write operation) and includes an HTTP POST method, but does not disclose critical traits like required permissions, whether emails are sent by default, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with 31 parameters, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence: 'Create Submittal. [Project Management/Submittals] POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/submittals'. It is front-loaded with the action and includes relevant context without unnecessary verbosity, though it could be slightly more informative.

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 (31 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It fails to explain the tool's behavior, output, error handling, or integration with sibling tools. For a creation tool in a project management context, more contextual information 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%, with detailed descriptions for all 31 parameters in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, but since the schema already provides comprehensive coverage, the 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 Submittal. [Project Management/Submittals] POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/submittals' states the verb ('Create') and resource ('Submittal'), and includes a category hint ('Project Management/Submittals') and HTTP method/path. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create_submittal_v1_1' or 'create_submittal_response', leaving the purpose clear but not differentiated.

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 (e.g., 'create_submittal_v1_1' or 'create_submittal_response' from the sibling list). It lacks context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, offering only basic operational information without usage instructions.

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