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 'Save' (implying a write/mutation operation) but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it creates new records or updates existing ones, idempotency, rate limits, or error handling. The description is too vague to inform the agent about the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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 two parts: a brief action statement and an API path. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the API path is somewhat redundant and could be integrated more smoothly, but it doesn't add unnecessary length.

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 (4 parameters with nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on what 'save' means operationally, the data format expected for parameters like 'header' and 'diagnostics', and what the tool returns. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without external knowledge.

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, header, location, diagnostics) having a description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 telematics stats data' restates the tool name ('save_telematics_stats_data_v2_0') with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It adds a resource ('telematics stats data') but lacks specificity about what 'save' entails (e.g., create, update, or store). The API path hint ('POST /rest/v2.0/companies/{company_id}/telematics/stats') provides some context but isn't integrated into the natural language description.

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 does not mention prerequisites, context, or sibling tools (e.g., other telematics or data-saving tools in the list). It fails to help an agent decide if this is the appropriate tool for a given scenario.

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