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 'Disable Payments' which implies a mutation (disabling), but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this requires admin permissions, if it's reversible (via 'enable_payments'), what happens to active payments, or if there are side effects like notifications. The API path hints at a PATCH operation, but the description lacks explicit safety or impact details.

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 but under-specified. It wastes space on the API path (which is redundant for tool selection) and a category tag, while lacking essential usage information. The structure is front-loaded with the tool name, but the content doesn't earn its place by adding value beyond what's inferable from the name.

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 (a mutation tool that disables payments), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'disable' entails, the scope (e.g., for specific projects), potential side effects, or how to verify success. For a financial tool with significant implications, this leaves critical 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: 'company_id' as a unique identifier and 'projectIds' as an array. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Since the schema fully documents the parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 'Disable Payments. [Construction Financials/Payments] PATCH /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/payments/projects/disable' restates the tool name ('Disable Payments') without adding specificity. It includes a category tag and API path, but lacks a clear verb+resource explanation (e.g., what 'disable' means operationally) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'enable_payments' beyond the opposite action.

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 (e.g., payments must be enabled first), consequences, or related tools like 'enable_payments' from the sibling list. Without any usage context, an agent cannot make informed decisions.

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