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. 'Enable payments' implies a write operation that changes system state, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this is reversible (via 'disable_payments'), side effects (e.g., notifications, audit trails), or error conditions. The API path ('PATCH') suggests mutation, but no further behavioral context is 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 under-specified rather than concise. 'Enable payments' is too brief to be helpful, and the appended API path ('[Construction Financials/Payments] PATCH /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/payments/projects/enable') is technical clutter that doesn't aid understanding. It lacks structured explanation of what the tool does, making it inefficient for an AI agent.

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-enabling mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'enabling' means operationally, what the expected outcome is, or any constraints (e.g., only for specific project states). For a tool that likely alters financial workflows, this is inadequate.

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 parameter semantics beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description doesn't compensate or add value.

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 'Enable payments' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It does not clarify what 'payments' refers to (e.g., payment processing for projects), what enabling entails, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'disable_payments' or 'approve_payments_beneficiary'. The API path hint ('Construction Financials/Payments') provides some context but is insufficient for clear purpose definition.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., payment configuration status), when enabling is appropriate, or what happens after enabling. Sibling tools like 'disable_payments' and 'approve_payments_beneficiary' exist, but no differentiation is provided.

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