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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a comment (a write operation) but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the creation is idempotent, rate limits, or what the response contains. The description is minimal and fails to provide necessary context for a mutation tool, leaving significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first phrase. The additional API endpoint information is relevant but could be considered slightly extraneous. However, it's efficiently presented in a single sentence without waste, earning a high score for brevity and 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 of a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about the mutation's effects, required permissions, response format, or error handling. The description does not compensate for the absence of structured data, making it inadequate for an agent to understand the full context of using this tool.

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 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters (project_id and inspection_id as unique identifiers). The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides—it only mentions the parameters implicitly via the API path. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Creates an Inspection Item Comment.' It specifies the verb ('Creates') and the resource ('Inspection Item Comment'), and includes the API endpoint path, which adds context about the resource hierarchy (projects/{project_id}/inspections/{inspection_id}/comments). However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools (e.g., 'create_a_task_item_comment' or 'create_punch_item_comment'), which are similar comment-creation tools but for different resources. This lack of sibling differentiation prevents a score of 5.

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 (e.g., needing an existing inspection), exclusions, or related tools. The API path implies it operates within a specific project and inspection context, but this is not stated as explicit usage guidance. Without any when-to-use or when-not-to-use information, the score is low.

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