Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Validate Existing Disbursement' which implies a read-only verification, but doesn't clarify whether this performs checks, returns status, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The HTTP method 'POST' suggests a potential state change, but the description doesn't explain this behavior. Without annotations, the description fails to disclose critical behavioral traits.

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 inefficient. It wastes characters on the HTTP endpoint 'POST /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/payments/disbursements/{disbursement_id}/validate' which belongs in structured metadata, not the description. The remaining text 'Validate Existing Disbursement. [Construction Financials/Payments]' is under-specified rather than concise. It's front-loaded but lacks substance.

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, no output schema, and a vague description, this is inadequate for a tool that likely performs validation on financial disbursements. The description doesn't explain what validation entails, what the expected output is, or any behavioral implications. For a tool with potential financial consequences, this leaves too many gaps for reliable agent use.

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 both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description. The description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given complete schema documentation.

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 Existing Disbursement' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It lacks a specific verb and resource context beyond the name, failing to distinguish what 'validate' means operationally. The bracketed category '[Construction Financials/Payments]' provides some domain context but doesn't clarify the action's purpose or outcome.

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, typical scenarios, or sibling tools (like 'validate_disbursement' which appears in the list). Without any usage context, an agent cannot determine when this validation is appropriate versus other payment-related actions.

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