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. It implies a mutation operation ('Update') but does not specify required permissions, whether the update is partial or full, potential side effects, or error conditions. The REST endpoint hint suggests a PATCH operation, which indicates partial updates, but this is not explicitly stated in the description. The description lacks critical behavioral details for a mutation tool.

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, consisting of a single sentence with additional technical details. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Update Contributing Condition') and avoids unnecessary verbosity. However, the inclusion of the REST endpoint, while informative, could be considered extraneous for an AI agent's primary understanding, though it does not detract significantly from clarity.

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 insufficient. It fails to explain what a 'Contributing Condition' is, the expected outcome of the update, error handling, or any system-specific constraints. The lack of behavioral transparency and usage guidelines leaves significant gaps for an agent to operate effectively in a real-world 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 (company_id, id, name, active). The description does not add any semantic information beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. However, since the schema is well-documented, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately covers parameter meanings.

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 Contributing Condition' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It adds a category tag '[Project Management/Incidents]' and a REST endpoint 'PATCH /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/contributing_conditions/{id}', which provides technical context but does not clearly articulate what the tool does in functional terms. It lacks a specific verb and resource scope, making the purpose vague.

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, context, or any sibling tools (e.g., 'create_contributing_condition', 'delete_contributing_condition', 'bulk_update_contributing_conditions') that might be relevant. Without such information, an agent cannot make an informed decision on tool selection.

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