Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether this is idempotent, what happens on duplicate codes, or what the response contains. The API path hint ('POST /rest/v1.0/tax_codes') adds minimal behavioral context.

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 at just two phrases. While under-specified, it wastes no words. The API path inclusion could be considered extraneous but doesn't significantly impact conciseness.

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?

For a creation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the domain context (Construction Financials/Tax), success/failure behavior, or provide any examples. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without extensive trial and error.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how rate1 relates to tax types) or provide examples.

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 Tax Code' clearly states the verb (Create) and resource (Tax Code), but it's overly simplistic and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_tax_type' or 'update_tax_code'. It lacks specificity about what a tax code represents in this financial context.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'create_tax_type', 'update_tax_code', and 'list_tax_codes' present, there's no indication of when this creation tool is appropriate versus those other operations.

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