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 states 'Update Budget Line Item' which implies a mutation operation, but doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what happens on partial updates, if it's idempotent, or what the typical response looks like. The API path hint suggests a PATCH operation, but this isn't explicitly explained. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 fragment plus an API path. While it's front-loaded with the core action ('Update Budget Line Item'), it lacks complete sentences and meaningful elaboration. However, it wastes no words on irrelevant details, earning points for brevity despite being under-specified.

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 this is a mutation tool (update) with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested object parameter (budget_line_item), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what constitutes a valid update, potential side effects, error conditions, or return values. The API path provides some technical context, but doesn't compensate for the lack of behavioral and usage guidance needed for safe invocation.

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 three parameters (id, project_id, budget_line_item) having basic descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify the structure of the budget_line_item object or provide examples). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 essentially restates the tool name 'update_budget_line_item_v1_1'. It lacks specificity about what 'update' entails (e.g., which fields can be modified) and doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'create_budget_line_item' or other update tools. The bracketed path '[Construction Financials/Budget] PATCH /rest/v1.1/budget_line_items/{id}' provides API context but doesn't clarify the functional purpose.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing budget line item ID), distinguish it from create or delete operations, or reference sibling tools like 'create_budget_line_item' or 'budget_line_item' retrieval tools. Without any usage context, an agent must infer everything from the name and schema.

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