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 of behavioral disclosure. The description only states 'Update Configurable Field Set', which implies a mutation operation but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the update is partial or full, side effects, error conditions, or rate limits. The API path hints at a PATCH operation, but this is insufficient for an AI agent to understand the tool's behavior safely.

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 but under-specified. It consists of a tautological title followed by bracketed role/API path information. While it avoids verbosity, it fails to provide essential explanatory content, making it inefficient in conveying useful information. The structure is not front-loaded with actionable guidance for an AI agent.

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 an update tool with 8 parameters (including nested objects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what a 'Configurable Field Set' is, what fields can be updated, or what the expected outcome is. The agent is left with significant gaps in understanding how to use this tool effectively and safely.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional semantic information about parameters beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it does not explain relationships between fields like 'category' and 'observations_category_id', or clarify the structure of the 'fields' object). However, since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 Configurable Field Set' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It lacks a specific verb and resource details, and does not distinguish this tool from its many sibling tools (e.g., 'create_configurable_field_sets', 'delete_configurable_field_set'). The bracketed text '[Company Admin/Custom - Configurable Tools]' and API path 'PATCH /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/configurable_field_sets/{id}' are technical details that do not clarify the tool's purpose for an AI agent.

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 does not mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. Given the presence of sibling tools like 'create_configurable_field_sets' and 'delete_configurable_field_set', the absence of any comparative guidance is a significant gap that leaves the agent without direction.

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