Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states 'Save Stamp' and a POST endpoint, implying a write operation, but does not disclose critical behaviors: whether it creates or updates a stamp, what permissions are required, if it's idempotent, or what happens on failure. The URL path suggests it's scoped to a company and project, but this is not explicitly explained.

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 but inefficiently structured. It wastes space on a tautological title and includes a URL path that adds little value for an AI agent. While not verbose, it fails to front-load useful information, making it less helpful despite its conciseness.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool. It lacks essential context: what a 'stamp' is, the operation's effect (create vs. update), expected response format, error conditions, and how it fits into the broader system. The sibling tool list includes related tools (e.g., 'delete_stamp', 'get_stamps'), but no guidance is provided on their relationships.

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 each parameter (company_id, project_id, stamp) having a basic description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the 'stamp' parameter format or relationships between IDs. However, with full schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the schema adequately documents the inputs.

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 'Save Stamp' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding clarity. It includes a category tag '[Project Management/Document Markup]' and a URL path, but fails to specify what the tool actually does (e.g., creates, updates, or stores a stamp object). The verb 'Save' is vague and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'save_stamp_v2_0' or 'delete_stamp'.

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., after creating a stamp), or differentiate it from sibling tools like 'save_stamp_v2_0' or 'get_stamps'. Without any usage instructions, an agent cannot make informed decisions.

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