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 indicates a POST operation, implying a write/mutation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The description lacks crucial details for a mutation tool with 12 parameters.

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: the action and the HTTP endpoint. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, the endpoint detail 'POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/incidents/witness_statements' is somewhat redundant with the tool name and could be trimmed for brevity without losing clarity.

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 (12 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It does not explain the return value, error conditions, or how the tool fits into the broader incident management workflow. For a mutation tool with many parameters and no structured behavioral hints, more context is needed to guide the agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 12 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters (e.g., witness_id must reference an existing witness). Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 tool creates a witness statement, which is a specific verb (create) and resource (witness statement). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_incident' or 'create_near_miss', and the context '[Project Management/Incidents]' is vague without explaining the relationship between incidents and witness statements.

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 mentions the context '[Project Management/Incidents]' but does not specify prerequisites, such as needing an existing incident, or when to choose this over other incident-related tools like 'create_incident' or 'update_incident'.

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