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 implies a creation operation ('Create') but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The HTTP method (POST) hints at mutation, but no further 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 brief but inefficiently structured. It repeats the tool name, includes platform context and HTTP details, but these are not front-loaded with actionable information. It could be more concise by omitting redundant elements and focusing on purpose.

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 of a creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what a webhook hook is, what data it returns, or any behavioral context, making it inadequate for an agent to use effectively.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are required or documented. The description does not add parameter semantics, but since there are no parameters, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the schema fully covers the absence of parameters.

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 Webhooks Hook. [Platform - Developer Tools/Webhooks] POST /rest/v1.0/webhooks/hooks' restates the tool name ('Create Webhooks Hook') and adds an HTTP method and endpoint, but does not specify what a 'webhooks hook' is or what resource it creates. It lacks a clear verb+resource combination (e.g., 'creates a new webhook subscription') and does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_company_webhooks_hook_v2_0' or 'create_project_webhooks_hook_v2_0'.

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 does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., company vs. project scope), or sibling tools, leaving the agent with no usage instructions.

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