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 mentions 'POST' implying a write operation, but does not disclose if this is a safe validation (read-only) or if it modifies state, what permissions are needed, or any side effects like logging or notifications. The lack of behavioral details is a significant gap for a tool with potential financial implications.

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 and front-loaded with the tool name and endpoint, but it includes redundant information (repeating the name) and lacks meaningful content. While concise, it under-specifies by not adding useful context, making it inefficient in conveying purpose beyond the structured fields.

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 (8 parameters, financial domain) and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what validation means, what the output might be (e.g., success/failure, error details), or behavioral traits. For a tool in a critical domain like payments, this leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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 8 parameters (e.g., amount in cents, payouts list, status enum). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, but the schema is comprehensive, meeting the baseline for adequate coverage without extra value from the description.

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 'Validate Disbursement. [Construction Financials/Payments] POST /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/payments/disbursements/validate' restates the tool name and adds a category and endpoint, but does not specify what validation entails (e.g., checking for errors, verifying funds, ensuring compliance). It lacks a clear verb+resource distinction from siblings, making it vague about the actual action performed.

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 (e.g., before finalizing a payment), or sibling tools that might be related (e.g., create_disbursement, approve_payments_beneficiary). This leaves the agent without usage direction.

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