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 mentions 'POST' implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on duplicate names/positions. The description adds minimal context beyond the HTTP method.

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 sentences: one stating the purpose and context, another with the API endpoint. It's front-loaded with the action, though the endpoint detail might be redundant if the agent already has structured API data. No wasted words.

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 (create), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on success/error responses, side effects, and doesn't compensate for the absence of structured behavioral data. More context is needed for safe and effective use.

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 additional parameter semantics—it doesn't explain relationships (e.g., company_id and project_id hierarchy) or constraints beyond uniqueness. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 Wbs Attributes') and provides context ('Construction Financials/Work Breakdown Structure'), but it's somewhat vague—it doesn't specify what WBS attributes are or what creating them entails. It distinguishes from siblings by not being a list/update/delete tool, but lacks explicit differentiation.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description includes an API endpoint but doesn't explain prerequisites, context, or compare with sibling tools like 'create_wbs_attribute_items_in_bulk_v2_0' or 'list_wbs_attributes_v2_0'.

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