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 states 'Creates Requested Change' which implies a write/mutation operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on success/failure, or rate limits. The mention of '(Legacy)' hints at deprecation but is unclear. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic 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?

The description is brief (one sentence with additional endpoint info), which is efficient. However, it is under-specified rather than concise—it lacks essential details about purpose and usage. The structure includes the endpoint, which is useful but not front-loaded with clear intent.

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 (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a 'Requested Change' is, the expected outcome, or error handling. For a creation tool with multiple parameters and no output schema, 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%, with all parameters documented in the schema (e.g., project_id, task_id, change_reason). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. According to rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 'Creates Requested Change. [Project Management/Schedule (Legacy)] POST /rest/v1.0/requested_changes' restates the tool name ('Creates Requested Change') without adding specificity. It mentions the API endpoint and category, but lacks a clear verb+resource explanation of what a 'Requested Change' is or what it does, making it vague. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_requested_change_v1.1' or other 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. It does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., when to create a requested change in project management), or exclusions. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'create_change_event', 'create_change_order_request'), the absence of usage guidelines is a significant gap.

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