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' (implying a mutation) and includes the HTTP method 'PATCH', which hints at partial updates. However, it lacks critical behavioral details: required permissions, whether updates are reversible, side effects, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 and front-loaded with the core action. It wastes no words, though it could be more structured (e.g., separating purpose from technical details). The inclusion of the HTTP endpoint is slightly technical but not overly verbose.

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 (a mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral risks, output expectations, or error conditions. For a tool that modifies production data, more context is needed to ensure safe and 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between fields like 'crew_id' and 'location_id'). 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 clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('Actual Production Quantity'), and the category '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' provides context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'bulk_update_actual_production_quantities' or 'create_actual_production_quantity', which is a minor gap.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing production quantity to update), compare with bulk or create operations, or specify typical use cases. This leaves the agent without contextual usage cues.

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