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. It mentions 'PATCH' which implies a partial update, but does not disclose critical behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on validation errors. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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 very concise with just one sentence, front-loading the key action ('Update Change Event'). There is no wasted verbiage, though it could benefit from more context. It efficiently states the purpose but lacks depth.

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 (22 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It does not explain the return values, error handling, or provide any context about the Change Event domain. For a mutation tool with rich input schema, more guidance is needed.

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 already documents all 22 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the tool updates a Change Event, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like 'update_change_event' or 'update_change_event_production_quantity', leaving ambiguity about its unique scope. The inclusion of '[Construction Financials/Change Events]' adds some context but is not fully clarifying.

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. With sibling tools like 'update_change_event' and 'update_change_event_production_quantity', there is no indication of differences in functionality, versioning, or appropriate contexts, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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