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' implying a mutation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to existing settings. The API path hint suggests a PATCH operation, but this is not elaborated for agent understanding.

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 functional statement and API details. However, the API path and bracketed text may be extraneous for an agent's tool selection, and the structure could be more front-loaded with usage context. It avoids waste but includes technical details that don't aid semantic 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 complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks information on what the update affects (e.g., overriding existing settings), error conditions, or return values. The API hint does not compensate for missing behavioral and output context.

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%, with clear descriptions for all parameters (e.g., 'ID of the company', 'Currency Display Options'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema is comprehensive, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 'Update Company Currency Configuration', which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_project_currency_configuration' or 'create_company_currency_configuration_v2_0', and the bracketed text '[Construction Financials/Currency Configurations] PATCH /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/currency_configuration' adds API details 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 does not mention prerequisites, such as needing company_id, or contrast with sibling tools like 'create_company_currency_configuration_v2_0' for initial setup versus updates. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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