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 write operation ('Create') but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it returns the created object, error conditions, or idempotency. The API endpoint hint adds minimal context, but critical mutation details are missing.

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 front-loads the tool name redundantly and includes an API endpoint that may not be essential for an AI agent. While not verbose, it wastes space on repetition and technical details that don't aid tool selection.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is inadequate. It fails to explain what a 'Work Activity' is, its role in incidents, or the expected response format. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively beyond the basic schema.

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. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description. The description does not compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 Work Activity. [Project Management/Incidents] POST /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/incidents/work_activities' restates the tool name ('Create Work Activity') without adding meaningful specificity. It includes a category hint and API endpoint, but lacks a clear verb+resource definition that distinguishes it from sibling tools (e.g., 'create_work_log', 'create_workflow_activity_history'). This is borderline tautological.

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 does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., within incidents), or sibling tools like 'list_work_activities' or 'update_work_activity'. The agent receives no usage instructions.

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