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. It states 'Create' (implying a write/mutation) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on duplicate names, or the format of the response (since no output schema exists). The API path hint ('POST') implies a write, but no safety or side-effect details are given.

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—two short phrases plus an API path. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Create Unit of Measure'). However, the API path is redundant for tool selection and could be considered clutter, though it doesn't significantly harm readability.

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 (a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks context on what a 'Unit of Measure' is, prerequisites (e.g., existing category), success/failure behavior, or return values. The agent must rely heavily on the schema and guesswork, making this inadequate for a mutation tool.

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 parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the company'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but since the schema is comprehensive, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. No additional context like parameter constraints or relationships is offered.

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 states the action ('Create') and resource ('Unit of Measure'), which is clear. However, it doesn't specify what a 'Unit of Measure' is in this context (e.g., a measurement unit like 'feet' or 'hours'), and it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_unit_of_measure' or 'delete_unit_of_measure' beyond the verb. The inclusion of the API path adds technical detail but not semantic clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing unit of measure category), when not to use it, or refer to sibling tools like 'list_units_of_measure' for checking existing ones. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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