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 mentions 'POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/action_plans/plans/{id}/publish', which implies a mutation (POST) and suggests 'publish' might be part of the action, but it doesn't clarify if this is destructive, requires specific permissions, or has side effects like notifications. The description lacks behavioral details needed for safe invocation.

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 a single sentence that directly states the action, followed by a category and API endpoint. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary words. However, the inclusion of the API endpoint might be extraneous for an AI agent's decision-making, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 state transition tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the outcome (e.g., what 'In Progress' means, if it triggers workflows, or returns confirmation), behavioral risks, or error conditions. For a mutation tool, this leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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 parameter definitions ('project_id' as 'Unique identifier for the project' and 'id' as 'Action Plan ID'). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, but since the schema is well-documented, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the action ('Move Action Plan into "In Progress"') and resource ('Action Plan'), but it's vague about what this transition entails. It doesn't specify if this is a status change, a workflow step, or what triggers it. The purpose is clear at a high level but lacks specificity about the operation's nature.

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. Given sibling tools like 'move_action_plan_back_into_draft', there are clearly other state transitions available, but the description doesn't explain when this specific transition is appropriate, what prerequisites exist, or what happens after moving to 'In Progress'.

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