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 states 'Update a Single Resource Request' and includes an HTTP method (POST), implying a mutation operation. However, it does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the update is idempotent, what happens to unspecified fields, error conditions, or response format. For a mutation tool with 14 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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: the tautological title and the endpoint. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The endpoint detail is useful for technical context but does not earn its place in helping an AI agent understand the tool's purpose or usage. It is front-loaded but lacks substance.

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 (14 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what a 'Resource Request' is, what the update entails, or what the tool returns. The agent must rely solely on the parameter schema without guidance on the tool's overall behavior or expected outcomes. For a mutation tool with rich parameters, this is inadequate.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with detailed descriptions for all 14 parameters in the input schema. The description itself adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description. The description does not compensate or add value, but it also does not detract.

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 Resource Request' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal context. It adds the category '[Resource Management/Resource Planning]' and endpoint 'POST /rest/v1.0/workforce-planning/v2/companies/{company_id}/resource-requests/{request_id}', but these do not clarify what the tool actually does beyond the obvious 'update' action. It lacks specificity about what resource requests are or what fields can be updated.

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. With 14 sibling tools on the server, there is no mention of when this specific update tool is appropriate, what prerequisites exist, or how it differs from other update tools. The agent is left with no usage context.

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