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 mentions 'POST /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/trades', indicating an HTTP method and endpoint, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is idempotent, what permissions are needed beyond the hint, what happens on success/failure, or if it's a mutating operation. The description adds minimal context beyond the name.

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: 'Create Trade' and the endpoint details. It's front-loaded with the action, but the endpoint information, while useful for context, could be considered extraneous for an AI agent. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool (implied by 'create'), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on required permissions, what a 'trade' represents, the response format, error handling, or any side effects. For a tool that creates resources, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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 'company_id', 'name', and 'active'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 Trade' states the action (create) and resource (trade), but it's vague about what a 'trade' is in this context (e.g., a trade entry, classification, or something else). It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_tax_type' or 'create_unit_of_measure', which have similar naming patterns but likely different purposes.

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 includes '[Company Admin/Company Settings]' which hints at permissions but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or when this is appropriate compared to other creation tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'create_tax_type').

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