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 a POST operation implying a write/mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this is idempotent, what happens on conflict, or the response format. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context.

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 a single sentence stating the purpose and including the HTTP method and endpoint. However, it's front-loaded with the core action but lacks any additional useful context, making it somewhat under-specified rather than optimally efficient.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'available' means operationally, the expected outcome, error conditions, or any side effects. For a POST tool modifying permissions or associations, this is a significant gap.

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 detailed descriptions for company_id, job_title_id, and group_id. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but the schema does the heavy lifting, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Make Job Title available to Group') and identifies the resource (Job Title and Group). It specifies the operation is about availability, but doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'remove_job_title_from_being_available_to_group' or 'make_tag_from_being_available_to_group' beyond the resource type.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, permissions, or typical scenarios for making a job title available to a group. It doesn't mention sibling tools or any exclusions.

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