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 'Update a manual hold' which implies a mutation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the update is reversible, potential side effects, or rate limits. The API path hint ('PATCH') suggests a partial update, but this is not explicitly explained.

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 two parts: a brief purpose statement and an API path hint. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, the API path is somewhat redundant and could be considered clutter, though it provides context.

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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool. It lacks information on what fields can be updated, the expected response, error conditions, or dependencies. The API path hint adds some context but does not compensate for the missing behavioral and output details.

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 'id', 'project_id', and 'invoice_id'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters or updateable fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Update a manual hold') and identifies the resource, but it is vague about what a 'manual hold' is and what aspects can be updated. It does not distinguish from sibling tools, as there is a 'create_a_manual_hold_for_a_given_invoice' tool, but no explicit differentiation is provided.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description includes a context tag '[Construction Financials/Invoices]' and an API path, but these do not provide explicit usage instructions, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'create_a_manual_hold_for_a_given_invoice' or 'list_manual_holds_for_a_given_invoice'.

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