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. It mentions 'review' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits: Is this a mutation (likely PATCH implies update)? Does it require specific permissions? What happens on success (e.g., status change)? No rate limits, side effects, or error handling are described, leaving significant gaps.

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 with no wasted words, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It includes an API path hint ('PATCH /rest/v1.1/projects/{project_id}/schedule/requested_changes/review') which is somewhat redundant but not harmful. Structure is straightforward, though it could be more front-loaded with intent.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool (implied by PATCH), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover the tool's behavior, return values, error cases, or how it fits into the workflow (e.g., after listing changes). For a tool that likely updates schedule changes, this leaves too much undefined for an agent to use 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%, with parameters 'project_id' and 'requested_changes' documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning—it doesn't explain what 'requested_changes' array should contain or the review action's effect. Baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is provided.

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' states the action (review) and resource (requested changes), but is vague about what 'review' entails—approval, rejection, or comment? It doesn't specify the outcome or distinguish from sibling tools like 'list_requested_changes' or 'create_requested_change_v1_1'. The purpose is clear at a high level but lacks specificity.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include 'list_requested_changes' (for viewing) and 'create_requested_change_v1_1' (for creating), but the description doesn't mention these or provide context like prerequisites (e.g., after listing changes). Usage is implied only by the verb 'review'.

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