Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Create task' and includes a technical endpoint '[Project Management/Schedule (Legacy)] POST /rest/v1.0/tasks', which hints at a write operation but does not clarify permissions, side effects, error conditions, or response format. This is insufficient 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 extremely concise ('Create task. [Project Management/Schedule (Legacy)] POST /rest/v1.0/tasks'), but this brevity comes at the cost of under-specification. The first part is tautological, and the second part is technical endpoint info that may not aid the agent. While not verbose, it fails to convey necessary context efficiently.

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's complexity (a mutation with nested objects), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a 'task' entails, what fields are required, the expected response, or error handling. The technical endpoint hint is insufficient to compensate for these gaps.

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 descriptions for both parameters ('project_id' and 'task'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even without param info in the description.

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 task' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It does not clarify what kind of task is being created, what resource it belongs to, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'create_task_item' or 'create_lookahead_task'. This provides minimal guidance beyond the obvious.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, context (e.g., project management), or distinctions from sibling tools. The agent is left with no usage instructions.

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