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 Calendar Item' which implies a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like required permissions, whether updates are partial or full, idempotency, side effects, or error conditions. The API path hint suggests a PATCH operation, but this isn't explicitly explained 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 brief but inefficient. 'Update Calendar Item' is under-specified, while the bracketed API details could be structured better. However, it's not verbose or poorly organized—just minimal. The single sentence format is acceptable but lacks front-loaded 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?

For a mutation tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'update' entails, what happens to unspecified fields, or what the response contains. The API path provides some context but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral and output information 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 10 parameters well-documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., that 'start' and 'finish' define a date range) or provide examples. With complete schema coverage, 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 Calendar Item' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It lacks a clear verb-resource combination and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_calendar_event' or 'update_schedule_item' (if they existed). The bracketed text '[Project Management/Schedule (Legacy)] PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/schedule/calendar_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. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing calendar item), exclusions, or sibling tools. The agent is left with no usage context beyond the generic 'update' action.

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