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 the action is a PATCH operation, implying mutation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether deactivation is reversible, side effects (e.g., impact on payments), or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 and front-loaded with the core action. However, it includes an API endpoint path ('PATCH /rest/v1.0/...') which is redundant for tool selection and could be omitted for better clarity. The single sentence is efficient but under-specified.

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 tool's complexity (a mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on the outcome (e.g., success response, error handling), side effects, and when to use it. For a deactivation tool, this leaves critical gaps in understanding its behavior and impact.

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 (company_id and early_pay_program_id). The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or contextual usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 states the action ('Deactivate') and resource ('Early Pay Program'), providing a clear basic purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., 'update_early_pay_program' or 'create_early_pay_program'), leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific deactivation tool versus other modifications.

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 lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., must be active), conditions for deactivation, or what happens post-deactivation. Sibling tools like 'update_early_pay_program' exist, but no distinction is made.

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