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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Update' but does not clarify if this is a partial or full update, what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, or what happens on failure. The description is minimal and fails to provide essential behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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—only one sentence—and front-loaded with the core action. There is no wasted verbiage. However, it could be argued that it is too concise, bordering on under-specified, but it efficiently states the primary function without redundancy.

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 (16 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It does not explain the update behavior, required permissions, error handling, or what the tool returns. For a mutation tool with many parameters, the description should provide more context to guide proper usage, but it fails to do so.

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%, meaning the schema already documents all 16 parameters with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters (e.g., that 'attachment_ids' preserves existing attachments). However, since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'a compliance document', which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it does not specify what fields can be updated or distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_a_compliance_document_project_v1_0' or 'create_a_compliance_document_project', leaving the purpose somewhat vague.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing compliance document, or differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_a_compliance_document_project' or 'delete_a_compliance_document_project'. This lack of context makes it difficult for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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