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 '[Construction Financials/Commitments]' which provides some domain context, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this is a destructive write operation, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The POST method hint is minimal behavioral information.

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 extremely concise with just two brief sentences. While efficient, the second sentence with API endpoint details feels more like implementation documentation than user guidance. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose, but could benefit from more operational context.

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?

For a creation tool with 4 parameters (including nested objects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'work order contract' is in this context, what the response looks like, error conditions, or prerequisites. The '[Construction Financials/Commitments]' hint is too vague to compensate for these gaps.

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 itself. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., that 'work_order_contract' object contains the actual contract details while 'project_id' provides context) or provide examples of valid 'work_order_contract' structures.

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 order contract' clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('work order contract'), which is adequate. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_purchase_order_contract' or 'create_commitment_contract_v2_0', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific tool versus other contract creation tools.

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. With many sibling tools for creating different types of contracts (purchase order, commitment, prime contract, etc.), the agent receives no help in selecting the appropriate tool for a 'work order contract' scenario.

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