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 states 'Update Checklist Section' and includes a PATCH method, implying a mutation operation. However, it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the update is partial or full, what happens to existing data, or any side effects. The description is minimal and lacks critical behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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 with two parts: a tautological statement and an API context. It is front-loaded but under-specified, lacking necessary detail. While it avoids verbosity, it sacrifices clarity for brevity. The structure is straightforward but incomplete.

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 (mutation with nested object parameter), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what the 'section' object contains, the update behavior, or the response format. For a tool that modifies data, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how to use it correctly.

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 four parameters (list_id, id, project_id, section). The description adds no additional meaning about these parameters beyond what the schema provides. It mentions the API path which implies list_id and id are path parameters, but this is not explicitly stated. 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 'Update Checklist Section' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It adds '[Project Management/Inspections] PATCH /rest/v1.0/checklist/lists/{list_id}/sections/{id}', which provides API context but does not clearly articulate what the tool actually does beyond the word 'Update'. It fails to specify what aspects of a checklist section can be updated or the expected outcome.

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 numerous sibling tools (e.g., 'update_checklist', 'update_checklist_inspection', 'update_checklist_item'), there is no indication of how this tool differs or when it is appropriate. The API path hints at a specific resource but offers no usage context.

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