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. 'Update' implies a mutation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like: whether this requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens when updating dates or status, or if there are validation rules (e.g., can't set status to 'closed' if dates are invalid). The API endpoint hint suggests PATCH semantics, but this isn't 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 extremely concise—just one sentence with an API endpoint reference. While under-specified, it wastes no words. The structure is front-loaded with the core action ('Update billing period'), though the bracketed context and endpoint could be better integrated.

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 6 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a billing period is, what the update does, what the response looks like, or any error conditions. The API endpoint hint adds some context but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral and usage information.

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 6 parameters with their types, enums (for status), and required status. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain relationships between dates (e.g., start_date <= end_date <= due_date) or what the status enum values mean in context.

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 billing period' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It mentions '[Construction Financials/Commitments]' and the API endpoint, but doesn't clarify what a billing period is or what fields can be updated. Compared to sibling tools like 'create_billing_period', it doesn't distinguish itself beyond the basic verb.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing an existing billing period), when not to use it, or what happens if you try to update a closed billing period. The sibling tool list includes 'create_billing_period', but no comparison is made.

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