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 disclose critical traits: whether it requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on partial updates, or error handling. The REST endpoint hints at a PATCH operation, but behavioral details like side effects or response format are missing, leaving significant gaps.

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 ('Update Bid Form'), followed by category and endpoint details. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, but the endpoint string is somewhat technical and could be streamlined. Overall, it is efficient with minimal waste, though not perfectly 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 (11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It fails to explain the tool's behavior, output expectations, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with many parameters, more context is needed—such as what the update entails, typical use cases, or example payloads—to make it complete enough for an agent to use effectively.

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 all 11 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides—it does not explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how base_bid and alternates arrays interact) or usage nuances. With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 Bid Form' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It includes a category '[Preconstruction/Bid Management]' and a REST endpoint, but does not clearly state what the tool does beyond the verb 'Update'—it lacks details on what fields can be updated, the scope of changes, or the resource context. This is vague and minimally distinguishes it from siblings.

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., existing bid forms), exclusions, or related tools (e.g., create_a_bid_form). Without any usage context, an agent cannot make informed decisions about tool selection.

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