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 mentions 'PATCH' which implies a partial update, but doesn't specify behavior like whether it overwrites all rates, merges with existing, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The description lacks critical details for a mutation tool with no annotation coverage.

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. It includes the HTTP method and endpoint path, which is useful but could be considered extraneous. No wasted sentences, though it could be more informative without losing conciseness.

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 it's a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral expectations. For a tool that modifies financial data, more context on impact and usage 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%, with clear descriptions for 'company_id' and 'exchange_rates'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format of exchange_rates array or validation rules. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 action ('Update') and resource ('Company Exchange Rates'), which is clear. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'update' entails (e.g., replace all rates, add new ones, modify existing ones). It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_company_exchange_rates' or 'update_project_exchange_rates', leaving ambiguity about scope.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include 'create_company_exchange_rates' and 'update_project_exchange_rates', but the description doesn't clarify if this is for modifying existing rates versus creating new ones, or if it's company-wide versus project-specific. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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