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 support pin' implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is idempotent, what permissions are needed beyond the hint, what the output looks like, or any side effects. The endpoint info adds some context but is insufficient 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 with two parts: the tautological purpose and endpoint details. However, it's under-specified rather than efficiently structured—key information like what a support pin is or why to create it is missing. It's front-loaded but lacks substance.

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 tool is a mutation (create) with no annotations, no output schema, and a vague purpose, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the resource being created, the outcome, or any behavioral context. For a create operation, this leaves 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?

The description does not mention parameters, but schema description coverage is 100% with one parameter (company_id) fully documented in the schema. With zero parameters described in the description and high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but since there's only one parameter and the schema handles it well, a score of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 support pin' restates the tool name and title, making it tautological. It adds minimal context with '[Company Admin/Company Settings]' and the endpoint, but does not specify what a 'support pin' is, what it's used for, or what resource it creates. This lacks a clear verb+resource distinction from siblings.

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 mentions '[Company Admin/Company Settings]' which hints at permissions but doesn't explicitly state prerequisites or exclusions. There is no comparison to sibling tools or context for 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.