Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Approve Payments Beneficiary' without explaining what approval does (e.g., changes status, triggers workflows, requires permissions), whether it's idempotent, or if it has side effects like notifications. This leaves the agent with no understanding of the tool's behavior beyond a vague 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 a single, poorly structured sentence that includes an API endpoint path ('PATCH /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/payments/beneficiaries/{payments_beneficiary_id}/approve'), which is redundant and not helpful for an AI agent. It wastes space on implementation details instead of focusing on user-facing semantics, making it inefficient despite its brevity.

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 of a payment approval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not cover behavioral aspects, usage context, or expected outcomes. For a mutation tool that likely involves financial workflows, this lack of detail makes it inadequate for safe and effective use by an 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%, with clear descriptions for each parameter (company_id, payments_beneficiary_id, receivingPaymentsCompanyExternalAccountId). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or typical values. However, with high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately documents the inputs.

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 'Approve Payments Beneficiary' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It mentions the resource ('Payments Beneficiary') but lacks a specific verb beyond 'Approve' and does not explain what 'approve' entails in this context. It fails to distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_payments_beneficiary_classification' or 'list_payments_beneficiaries'.

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 does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a beneficiary in a pending state, or exclusions, such as when a beneficiary is already approved. With many sibling tools related to payments and beneficiaries, the absence of usage 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.