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 the API method ('POST') and path, implying a write operation, but does not detail critical behaviors like required permissions, whether emails are sent by default, how attachments are handled, or error conditions. 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 concise and front-loaded with the core action ('Create Submittal'), followed by contextual API details. It wastes no words, though it could be slightly more informative (e.g., adding a brief note on key parameters). The structure is efficient for a basic 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 (31 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It does not explain the return value, error handling, or important behavioral aspects like the effect of 'send_emails' or attachment processing. For a tool that creates a submittal with many fields and constraints, more context 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%, with detailed parameter descriptions in the input schema (e.g., constraints like 'This field can only be set by admins'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as 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 verb ('Create') and resource ('Submittal'), making the purpose explicit. It also includes the API path context ('POST /rest/v1.1/projects/{project_id}/submittals'), which reinforces the action. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create_submittal' (without version suffix) or other creation tools, missing explicit differentiation.

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 context about prerequisites (e.g., project setup, permissions), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'create_submittal' (which might be a different version). Without such information, 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.