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. While 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the response contains. The API path hint suggests it's a legacy endpoint but doesn't explain implications. This leaves significant gaps 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 brief but not effectively structured. 'Create todo' is under-specified, while the API path information, though concise, is not front-loaded with actionable guidance for an AI agent. The description avoids verbosity but fails to convey essential usage information 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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what a 'todo' entity represents, what fields the 'todo' object should contain, what the creation response looks like, or any error conditions. The API path hint is insufficient to compensate for these omissions in a creation context.

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 both parameters ('project_id' and 'todo') having clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no parameter info in the description, which applies here.

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 todo' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It lacks a clear verb+resource combination and does not distinguish this tool from its many sibling tools (e.g., 'create_task', 'create_checklist', 'create_action_plan'). The additional text '[Project Management/Schedule (Legacy)] POST /rest/v1.0/todos' provides API context but does not clarify the tool's functional purpose for an AI agent.

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. With numerous sibling tools like 'create_task', 'create_checklist', and 'create_action_plan', there is no indication of what distinguishes a 'todo' from these other entities or when this specific creation tool is appropriate. The agent receives no usage context.

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