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. 'Save Stamp' implies a write operation (likely creation or update), but it doesn't specify whether this creates a new stamp or updates an existing one, what permissions are required, or what happens on success/failure. The POST endpoint hint suggests mutation, but without details on side effects or error handling.

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 under-specified—'Save Stamp' is too vague, and the added endpoint path is redundant for an AI agent. It's front-loaded but lacks substance. While not verbose, it fails to convey necessary information efficiently, making it more of a placeholder than a concise summary.

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 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a stamp is, what saving does, or what the expected outcome is. The endpoint path provides some context but doesn't compensate for the lack of behavioral and usage details needed for effective tool invocation.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 10 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the purpose of 'custom_properties' or 'font_style'). However, it doesn't contradict the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clarifying the action or resource. It adds '[Project Management/Document Markup]' as context but doesn't specify what a 'stamp' is or what saving entails. Compared to sibling tools like 'delete_stamp_v2_0' or 'get_stamps_v2_0', it fails to distinguish itself beyond the verb 'save'.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing stamps), related operations (like updating or deleting stamps), or constraints. Given the sibling tools include 'delete_stamp_v2_0' and 'get_stamps_v2_0', the absence of any comparative context is a significant gap.

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