Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but provides none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read or write operation (though 'Create' suggests mutation), what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or any rate limits. The description fails to disclose any behavioral traits beyond the implied creation action.

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?

While technically concise, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. The single sentence 'Create Workflow Activity History' is too vague to be helpful, and the API path information, while potentially useful for developers, doesn't provide operational guidance for an AI agent. The structure fails to front-load essential information.

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 7-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'workflow activity history' is, what gets created, what the expected response looks like, or any prerequisites. Given the complexity implied by 7 parameters (5 required), the description fails to provide adequate context for proper tool invocation.

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%, providing good documentation for all 7 parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. However, since the schema already fully describes each parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate - the description doesn't need to compensate but also adds no value.

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 Workflow Activity History' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It lacks a specific verb and resource explanation, failing to clarify what 'creating a history' entails. The API path '[Core/Workflows] POST /rest/v1.0/workflow_activity_histories' provides some technical context but doesn't explain the functional purpose.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 7 sibling tools containing 'workflow' in their names (like create_workflow_instances_company_v2_0, list_workflow_activity_histories, etc.), there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it's appropriate. The agent receives no usage context.

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