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 'Restore Change Event' which implies a mutation (undoing a deletion or reverting a state), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like: what 'restore' actually does (e.g., reactivates a soft-deleted event), required permissions, side effects, or error conditions. The HTTP method (PUT) hints at mutation, but the description lacks crucial operational 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 extremely concise—just one line with the tool name, domain context, and HTTP endpoint. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Restore Change Event') and wastes no words. However, it's arguably too terse, lacking explanatory value beyond the name and technical details.

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 'restore' operation (likely a mutation with state implications), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'restore' entails, what state the change event transitions to, possible outcomes, or error scenarios. For a tool that presumably alters data, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to operate safely.

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 ('id' and 'project_id') documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., how 'id' relates to change events, or why 'project_id' is required). However, since the schema fully describes the parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 'Restore Change Event' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name. It adds minimal context with '[Construction Financials/Change Events]' and the HTTP method/endpoint, but doesn't clearly explain what 'restore' means operationally (e.g., undoing deletion, reverting status). Compared to sibling tools like 'delete_change_event_v1_1' or 'create_change_event_v1_1', the purpose is implied but not explicitly distinguished.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., only works on deleted or archived change events), related tools (like 'delete_change_event_v1_1' or 'update_change_event_v1_1'), or constraints. An agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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