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. It states 'Create' (implying a write operation) but does not disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, 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 a single, efficient sentence that includes the tool's purpose and API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, though it could be slightly more structured by separating conceptual from technical details.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a 'Submittal Response' is in this context, the expected return values, error conditions, or how it fits into the broader workflow, leaving significant gaps for an AI 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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (project_id, name, considered) with descriptions and an enum for 'considered'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline of 3 when 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 ('Submittal Response'), and includes the API endpoint context '[Project Management/Submittals] POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/submittal_responses'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_submittal' or 'update_submittal', which would require a 5.

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 like 'create_submittal' or 'update_submittal_response'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing submittal or project, or when this operation is appropriate.

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