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 'Create Budget Modification' implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The POST endpoint hint suggests mutation, but no further details are given.

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—two short phrases and an endpoint. It's front-loaded with the core action. However, the endpoint detail is redundant for an AI agent and could be omitted for better focus on human-readable guidance.

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 mutation tool with 7 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the outcome (e.g., what's returned), error conditions, or system behavior. The endpoint hint doesn't compensate for missing context about the tool's effects in the broader system.

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 all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain relationships between parameters like 'from_budget_line_item_id' and 'to_budget_line_item_id', or clarify the 'transfer_amount' format. 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 'Create Budget Modification' states the action (create) and resource (budget modification), but it's vague about what a budget modification entails—it doesn't specify that it's a transfer between budget line items. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'create_budget_change' or 'create_budget_line_item', which are also budget-related creation tools.

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 mentions '[Construction Financials/Budget]' and a POST endpoint, but this is technical context, not usage instructions. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or sibling tools like 'update_budget_modification' or 'delete_budget_modification'.

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