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. The description states 'Update Budget Line Item' and includes a PATCH endpoint, implying a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the update is idempotent, what happens on validation errors, or if there are rate limits. The endpoint format suggests an ID parameter, but no further behavioral context is given.

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 only one sentence and includes endpoint details, which is efficient. However, it lacks front-loading of critical information—the purpose is vague, and it could be more structured to highlight key usage aspects. Despite this, it avoids unnecessary verbosity and wastes no space on redundant information.

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 of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral expectations. The endpoint hint provides some context, but for a tool that modifies financial data, more guidance on safety and outcomes is needed to be fully helpful to an 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 all parameters (id, project_id, budget_line_item) documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain the structure of the budget_line_item object or relationships between parameters. However, with full schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 Budget Line Item' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It includes a category '[Construction Financials/Budget]' and endpoint 'PATCH /rest/v1.0/budget_line_items/{id}', which hints at context but doesn't specify what the tool actually does (e.g., which fields can be updated, what the operation entails). It fails to distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_budget_line_item_v1_1' or 'update_budget_modification'.

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 does not mention prerequisites, constraints, or when to choose this over similar tools like 'update_budget_line_item_v1_1' or 'update_budget_modification'. 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.