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 mentions the HTTP method (PATCH) and endpoint path, which hints at a partial update, but fails to describe critical behaviors: whether this requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on validation errors, or the response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 sentences: one stating the tool's purpose and another providing the API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, the second sentence includes technical details (PATCH, path) that might be redundant if the agent already has structured endpoint data, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 (12 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the tool's role in project management, what a Time and Material Notification is, or the expected outcome. For a tool with many parameters and no structured safety hints, more context is needed to guide proper usage.

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 all 12 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying an update operation. It does not explain the purpose of arrays like 'creation' or 'closed', or how boolean flags like 'run_configurable_validations' affect behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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') and resource ('a Time And Material Notification'), which is clear. However, it lacks specificity about what fields can be updated or the context of this notification within project management. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_a_new_time_and_material_notification' or 'delete_a_time_and_material_notification', leaving the purpose somewhat vague.

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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing notification), exclusions, or related tools like 'create_a_new_time_and_material_notification' for creation or 'delete_a_time_and_material_notification' for deletion. Usage is implied only by the verb 'Update', with no explicit context.

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