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' which implies a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on partial updates, or error handling. The API endpoint hint ('PATCH') suggests partial updates, but this isn't explicitly explained.

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 with the core action and resource, plus API endpoint in brackets. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, though the endpoint detail might be more technical than needed for an AI agent.

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?

For a mutation tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'update' entails (e.g., partial vs. full, validation rules), expected response, or error conditions. The API endpoint hint doesn't compensate for these gaps.

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 documents all 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is added.

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 ('Project Equipment Log'), but it's vague about what fields can be updated and lacks specificity. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'update_equipment_log' or 'update_project_equipment_maintenance_log', which are present in the sibling list.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description includes a category tag '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' and API endpoint, but these don't provide usage context. There's no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions.

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