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 mentions 'PATCH' implying a partial update, but does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the update is idempotent, what happens on validation errors, or if attachments require special handling (multipart/form-data). The description is insufficient 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 concise and front-loaded with the core action. However, it includes redundant information (restating the name) and the HTTP method/PATH details, which could be omitted for brevity without losing clarity. It is efficient but not perfectly structured.

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 (mutation tool with 5 parameters including nested objects and attachments) and no annotations or output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks information on required permissions, error handling, attachment upload specifics (multipart/form-data is only hinted in schema), and what the update operation returns. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 documents all parameters (id, project_id, contract_id, attachments, contract_payment). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but the schema's descriptions are adequate (e.g., 'Contract Payment object'). Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 Contract Payment. [Construction Financials/Commitments] PATCH /rest/v1.0/contract_payments/{id}' restates the tool name ('Update Contract Payment') and adds minimal context (category and HTTP method). It does not specify what a 'Contract Payment' is or what fields can be updated, making the purpose vague beyond the obvious verb+resource.

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 sibling tools list includes many update-related tools (e.g., update_contracts_invoice_configuration, update_prime_contract), but the description offers no differentiation or prerequisites for this specific update operation.

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