Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Update a drawing area' which implies a mutation, but does not cover permissions, side effects, error handling, or response format. The inclusion of 'PATCH' hints at partial updates, but this is not elaborated, leaving significant gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 and front-loaded with the core action. However, it includes extraneous details like '[Project Management/Drawings]' and 'PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/drawing_areas/{id}', which may clutter the purpose without adding clear value for an AI agent. It could be more streamlined by focusing on functional guidance.

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 an update operation, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what fields can be updated, the effect of partial updates, error conditions, or the return structure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves the agent under-informed about critical behavioral aspects.

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 descriptions for all four parameters (project_id, id, name, description). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as constraints or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately documents parameters.

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 clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('a drawing area'), providing a specific purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_a_drawing_area_v1_1' or 'create_drawing_area', leaving some ambiguity about versioning or creation alternatives.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the category '[Project Management/Drawings]' and HTTP method 'PATCH', but does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare with sibling tools like 'create_drawing_area' or 'delete_a_drawing_area'.

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