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 only hints at mutation via 'PATCH' and the 'Update' verb, but fails to describe critical behaviors: required permissions, whether updates are idempotent or destructive, rate limits, error handling, or the response format. For a mutation tool with 7 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core action ('Update Change Event'), but it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The bracketed category and HTTP endpoint add some structure, but the sentence doesn't earn its place by providing actionable guidance. It avoids verbosity but fails to deliver essential context.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the update scope, behavioral implications, or usage context. While the schema covers parameters well, the description lacks critical information for a mutation tool, such as what happens on success/failure or how to handle the 'change_event' object. This leaves the agent poorly equipped to use the tool 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%, with detailed parameter descriptions in the input schema (e.g., origin association rules, multipart/form-data requirements for attachments). The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but the description doesn't compensate or add value.

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 Change Event. [Construction Financials/Change Events] PATCH /rest/v1.0/change_events/{id}' is a tautology that restates the tool name and adds minimal context. It specifies the resource ('Change Event') and HTTP method (PATCH), but lacks a clear, specific verb or differentiation from sibling tools like 'update_change_event_v1_1' or 'create_change_event'. The bracketed category adds some domain context but doesn't clarify what the tool actually does beyond the obvious.

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 change event ID), compare it to sibling tools like 'update_change_event_v1_1' or 'create_change_event', or specify any constraints (e.g., when updates are allowed). This leaves the agent with no usage context beyond the tool name.

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