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 only states 'POST Company Role' and an endpoint, offering no insight into whether this is a creation, update, or other mutation, what permissions are needed (beyond a vague '[Company Admin/Company Settings]'), or any side effects like rate limits or idempotency. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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—a single line—but under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It wastes space on redundant details like the HTTP method and endpoint path, which are less helpful for an AI agent, while omitting crucial context about the tool's function. The structure isn't front-loaded with actionable information, making it minimally adequate but not effective.

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?

For a mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool does, when to use it, behavioral traits, or expected outcomes. The agent is left with only the schema for guidance, which is insufficient for safe and correct invocation in a complex system like Procore with many similar tools.

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 7 parameters documented in the schema (e.g., 'company_id' as 'Unique identifier for the company'). The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, not even hinting at required fields like 'company_id' or the purpose of others like 'archetype'. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 'POST Company Role. [Company Admin/Company Settings] POST /rest/v2.0/companies/{company_id}/roles' is tautological—it restates the tool name ('POST Company Role') and adds an HTTP method and endpoint path, which doesn't clarify what the tool actually does. It fails to specify the action (e.g., create, assign, modify) or the resource context beyond 'Company Role', making it vague and unhelpful for distinguishing from siblings like 'create_company_role_v2_0' or 'update_company_role_v2_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 mentions '[Company Admin/Company Settings]', hinting at required permissions, but doesn't explain the tool's purpose or context, such as whether it's for creating, updating, or managing roles. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'create_company_role_v2_0', 'update_company_role_v2_0'), the lack of differentiation leaves the agent guessing.

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