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 implies a mutation ('Update') but does not specify required permissions, whether the update is partial or full, side effects (e.g., triggering notifications), or error conditions. The API path suggests a PATCH operation, hinting at partial updates, but this is not explicitly stated in the description text.

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, efficient sentence that combines the action, resource, and API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary elaboration. However, the inclusion of the API path, while concise, could be considered slightly technical for a pure description.

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 (19 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., mutation effects, error handling), usage context, and output expectations. For a tool with many parameters and no structured safety hints, more descriptive guidance is needed to aid the agent.

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%, with each parameter well-documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. However, since the schema is comprehensive, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not detract but also does not add value.

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 ('Bid Board project'), which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_bid_board_project_custom_field_v2_0' or 'update_project', leaving the scope vague. The inclusion of the API endpoint path adds technical context but does not enhance functional clarity.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing specific permissions), exclusions, or related tools like 'create_bid_board_project_v2_0' or 'clone_bid_board_project_v2_0'. This absence leaves the agent without context for selection.

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