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' which implies a mutation, but fails to mention required permissions, whether updates are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. For a mutation tool with 11 parameters, this lack of behavioral context 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 a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose, with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, though it could be slightly more informative to improve utility without losing conciseness.

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 (11 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral traits like idempotency. For a tool that modifies time-off records, more context is needed to ensure correct 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters (e.g., how start_day and end_day interact). This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('a Time Off Record'), which is specific. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create_time_off_for_a_person' or 'delete_a_time_off_record', which would require explicit differentiation to achieve a score of 5.

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 like creating or deleting time-off records. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical scenarios for updating versus other operations, leaving the agent without usage context.

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