Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Update Checklist' and includes a PATCH method, implying a mutation, but does not mention permissions, side effects, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. The description is too sparse to inform the agent adequately about the tool's behavior.

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 ('Update Checklist'), followed by technical details. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though the inclusion of the HTTP method and path might be considered extraneous for an agent's understanding.

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 (5 parameters, nested objects, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the update semantics, error conditions, or return values, leaving significant gaps for the agent to operate 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%, so the schema already documents all parameters (id, run_configurable_validations, project_id, list, attachments). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden.

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 checklist, which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it does not distinguish this tool from other update tools in the sibling list (e.g., update_checklist_inspection, update_checklist_section), and the inclusion of the HTTP method and 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions a category '[Project Management/Inspections]' but does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like update_checklist_inspection. Without such context, the agent lacks usage direction.

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