Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Update' which implies a mutation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or side effects. The HTTP method (PATCH) hints at partial updates, but this is not explained in the description.

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 parts: a brief purpose statement and technical details (platform and endpoint). It is front-loaded with the core action, though the technical details could be considered extraneous for an AI agent. No wasted sentences.

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 tool is a mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key contextual aspects like what the update affects, error conditions, or response format. The complexity of updating nested objects (e.g., 'instance_configuration') warrants more explanation.

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 the 5 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between 'instance_configuration' and 'title'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 'Update app configuration' clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('app configuration'), but it is vague about what specifically gets updated. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_app_configuration' or 'delete_app_configuration' beyond the action verb, leaving scope ambiguous.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing app configuration, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'create_app_configuration' for initial setup.

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