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 mentions 'Modify' (implying mutation) but does not disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, side effects on related entities, or error handling. The API endpoint hint suggests a PATCH operation, but this is insufficient for understanding the tool's behavior in practice.

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 a single sentence with an API endpoint appended, making it brief and front-loaded. However, the API endpoint detail is extraneous for an AI agent and could be considered clutter, slightly reducing efficiency. Overall, it is concise but not perfectly structured for clarity.

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 (14 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It does not explain the mutation's impact, return values, or error conditions. For a tool that modifies financial markups with many parameters, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 fully documents all 14 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between fields like 'holder_type' and 'holder_id'. The baseline is 3 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 ('Modify an existing Markup') and resource ('Markup'), which is clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from its sibling 'add_a_new_markup' or other markup-related tools, and the inclusion of the API endpoint '[Construction Financials/Contracts] PATCH /rest/v1.0/financials/markups/{id}' adds technical detail but not functional differentiation.

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 like 'add_a_new_markup' or 'remove_an_existing_markup'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing markup ID, or any exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name and parameters alone.

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