Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Update Advance Ball in Court' without explaining what 'update' entails—whether it's a mutation, requires permissions, has side effects, or returns any data. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 but under-specified—it's a single sentence with an HTTP method and path, which is efficient but lacks necessary detail. While not verbose, it fails to convey essential information, so it's not optimally structured for clarity.

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 of an update operation, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'Advance Ball in Court' is, what the update does, or what the expected outcome is, leaving significant gaps for the agent to infer.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters (project_id and id). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since the schema is fully documented, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 Advance Ball in Court. [Project Management/RFI] PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/rfis/{id}/advance_ball_in_court' is tautological—it restates the tool name and adds an HTTP method and path, but does not explain what 'Advance Ball in Court' means or what the tool actually does. It lacks a clear verb+resource explanation, making it vague for an agent unfamiliar with the domain.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or sibling tools (e.g., other RFI-related tools like 'update_rfi' or 'update_advance_ball_in_court_v1_1'), leaving the agent with no usage instructions.

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