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 Response' which implies a mutation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the update is partial or full, side effects, or error conditions. The HTTP method (PATCH) hints at partial updates, but this is not explained in the description.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It includes the action, category, and endpoint, but could be more front-loaded with key details. It is appropriately sized for the information provided.

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 tool is a mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a 'Response' is, what the update entails, or what the return value might be. For a 4-parameter update tool in a complex domain (Project Management/Inspections), this leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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%, so the schema fully documents the parameters (company_id, id, name, corresponding_status). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints. The baseline is 3 when 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 'Update a Response. [Project Management/Inspections] PATCH /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/checklist/responses/{id}' restates the tool name ('Update a Response') and adds a category label and HTTP endpoint, but it does not specify what a 'Response' is or what fields can be updated. It distinguishes from siblings by being an update operation, but the purpose remains vague without context on the resource.

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 (e.g., create_a_response, delete_a_response, or other update tools). It lacks prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage instructions.

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