Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Review' implies a read operation, but 'PATCH' suggests mutation. The description doesn't clarify whether this tool approves/rejects changes, updates statuses, or performs another action. No information about permissions, side effects, or response format is included.

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 brief but inefficiently structured. The first part is tautological, while the technical details in brackets could be more clearly integrated. It's not excessively verbose, but the information density is low given the tool's likely complexity.

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?

For a mutation tool (PATCH) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'review' means operationally, what happens after review, or what the tool returns. The legacy tag suggests versioning considerations that aren't addressed.

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 documentation in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate schema coverage without description enhancement.

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 'Review Requested Changes' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It lacks a specific verb and resource definition, making the purpose vague. The additional text '[Project Management/Schedule (Legacy)] PATCH /rest/v1.0/requested_changes/review' provides technical context but doesn't explain what 'review' entails operationally.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Given the sibling tools list includes 'review_requested_changes_v1_1', there's clear need for differentiation that's completely absent.

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