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 'Batch Update RFIs' and implies a PATCH operation, suggesting mutation, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: whether it requires specific permissions, is idempotent, has rate limits, returns a response format, or handles partial failures. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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 restated name and a technical endpoint. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative—it wastes space on redundant name restatement and API details without adding value. It lacks front-loaded clarity, but is not verbose.

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 batch update operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'data' array should contain, how updates are applied, error handling, or expected outcomes. For a mutation tool with undocumented behavior, this leaves significant gaps for 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 parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., project_id as 'Unique identifier for the project'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema adequately documents the three parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Batch Update RFIs. [Project Management/RFI] PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/rfis' restates the tool name ('Batch Update RFIs') and adds only technical details (category and endpoint). It lacks a specific verb-resource combination explaining what 'update' entails (e.g., modifying multiple RFI records) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'update_rfi' or 'bulk_update_correspondence_type_items'.

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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a project_id), compare it to single-update tools, or specify scenarios for batch updates (e.g., efficiency for multiple RFIs). The description offers no usage context.

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