Procore MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Upload schedule file') without mentioning required permissions, whether this overwrites existing files, error handling, rate limits, or response format. 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 extremely concise with just three words, but the bracketed text '[Project Management/Schedule (Legacy)] PUT /rest/v1.0/schedule_integration' adds technical details without clear value. While brief, it's under-specified rather than optimally structured.

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 file upload tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after upload, success/failure responses, file format requirements, or integration context. The technical endpoint reference doesn't compensate for these gaps.

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 already documents both parameters (project_id and file) thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, which meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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 'Upload schedule file' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It lacks a clear verb-resource combination and doesn't distinguish this tool from other upload-related siblings like 'upload_schedule_file_v1_0_2' or general file upload tools in the list.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or sibling tools, leaving the agent with no usage context.

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