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 'Initiate schedule import' and includes a PUT endpoint, implying a write operation that may be asynchronous or mutating, but it does not clarify if this is destructive, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., overwriting existing data), or involves background processing. The mention of 'import' suggests data ingestion, but behavioral traits like idempotency, rate limits, or error handling 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 concise with two parts: a brief purpose statement and the API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the key action 'Initiate schedule import'. However, the endpoint details could be considered redundant if the agent already has structured API information, but they do not add unnecessary verbosity. The structure is efficient, though it lacks depth.

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 schedule import tool with 5 parameters (including a file parameter for multiple formats) and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the import process (e.g., validation, reporting), what 'initiate' implies (e.g., asynchronous job), or the expected outcome. The agent lacks sufficient context to understand the tool's full behavior and integration points.

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 well-documented in the schema (e.g., 'company_id', 'project_id', 'schedule_id', 'locale', 'file' with supported formats). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since coverage is high, the baseline score is 3. The description does not explain interactions between parameters or provide usage examples.

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 'Initiate schedule import' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'initiate_schedule_import_v2_0' without adding specificity. It mentions the category '[Project Management/Scheduling]' and the HTTP method 'PUT', but lacks details about what resource is being imported (e.g., schedule data from a file) or the outcome. It does not distinguish from sibling tools, which include many other import/upload tools like 'upload_schedule_file_v1_0'.

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 a schedule file), exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'upload_schedule_file_v1_0' or 'download_schedule_file'. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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