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 item' and includes an API endpoint, but fails to describe that this is a write operation, what permissions are required, whether it returns the created item, or any side effects. The endpoint hint suggests a POST request, but this is insufficient for understanding the tool's behavior.

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 overly concise to the point of being under-specified. 'Create task item' is a fragment, and the API endpoint '[Core/Tasks] POST /rest/v1.0/task_items' is included but not explained. While brief, it fails to convey necessary information, making it inefficient rather than appropriately concise.

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 (19 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the tool's purpose, usage, or behavior adequately. Without annotations or output schema, the description should compensate by detailing what the tool does, when to use it, and what to expect, but it falls short.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter clearly documented (e.g., 'project_id' as 'Unique identifier for the project'). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema carries the burden.

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 item' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It does not clarify what a 'task item' is, what resource it operates on, or how it differs from other creation tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'create_task', 'create_todo'). This lack of distinction leaves the purpose vague.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a project_id), constraints, or related tools like 'create_task' or 'update_task_item'. Without any usage context, an agent cannot make informed decisions.

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