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 states 'Update a Single Project' which implies a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether updates are partial or full, idempotency, side effects, or error conditions. The HTTP method (POST) is mentioned but without context about what that means behaviorally.

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 (one sentence plus endpoint) and front-loaded with the core action. However, it wastes space on redundant information (restating the name) and includes technical endpoint details that belong in structured metadata rather than natural language description. It could be more efficiently structured.

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?

For a mutation tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens on success/failure, return values, or error handling. The agent must rely entirely on the input schema and guess about behavioral outcomes, which is insufficient for safe operation.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (like status-dependent requirements) or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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 Single Project' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It mentions the HTTP method (POST) and endpoint path, but doesn't clarify what fields can be updated or what 'update' entails beyond the obvious. It fails to distinguish this from other project-related update tools in the sibling list.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools including other project update tools (like 'update_project'), there's no indication of scope differences, prerequisites, or appropriate contexts. The agent must infer usage solely from the name.

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