Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Update' which implies a mutation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no mention of permissions required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on partial updates, rate limits, or what the response contains. The endpoint hint suggests a PATCH operation, but this isn't explicitly explained. For a mutation tool with 29 parameters and no annotations, 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 extremely concise - just one sentence fragment. It wastes no words, though it could be argued it's under-specified rather than concise. It front-loads the core action ('Update Commitment Change Order Batch') but lacks any explanatory content. For its brevity, it's structurally sound 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 (29 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations, no output schema), the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'Commitment Change Order Batch' is, what fields can be updated, what the operation returns, or any behavioral context. For such a complex update tool in a domain-specific system, the description should provide much more guidance.

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 29 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description, which applies here.

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 Commitment Change Order Batch' is a tautology that restates the tool name. It adds the category '[Construction Financials/Commitments]' and endpoint 'PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/commitment_change_order_batches/{id}', which provides some context but doesn't specify what the tool actually does beyond the word 'Update'. It doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'update_commitment_change_order' or 'update_prime_change_order_batch'.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this specific batch update is appropriate, or what distinguishes it from other update tools in the sibling list. The agent must infer usage solely from the name and schema.

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