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 behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or if it triggers notifications. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 and front-loaded with the core action. However, the inclusion of the API path ('PATCH /rest/v1.0/change_order_requests/{id}') is somewhat redundant for an AI agent, as it doesn't add functional clarity. It could be more concise by focusing solely on the tool's purpose.

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 updating a change order request, with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested object parameter, the description is inadequate. It does not explain the expected behavior, return values, error conditions, or how the 'change_order' object should be structured. For a mutation tool in a financial context, more detail 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 parameters (id, project_id, contract_id, change_order). The description adds no additional meaning about these parameters, such as what 'change_order' object contains or how IDs are used. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 order request, which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'update_change_order_package' or 'update_change_event', and the inclusion of the API path adds technical detail but not functional differentiation.

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 lacks context about prerequisites, such as when a change order request exists and needs updating, or how it differs from creating or deleting one. It does not reference sibling tools for comparison.

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