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 fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: required permissions, whether changes are reversible, side effects (e.g., notifications), or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero 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 with no wasted words, consisting of a brief statement and an API path. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative, as it lacks essential context for a mutation tool.

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 tool's complexity (mutation with nested objects), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not cover behavioral aspects, usage context, or output expectations, making it insufficient for safe and effective agent invocation.

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 three parameters (id, project_id, coordination_issue). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the structure of 'coordination_issue' object or constraints. 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 Coordination Issue' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It lacks specificity about what 'update' entails (e.g., modifying fields, status, assignments) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'create_coordination_issue' or 'bulk_update_coordination_issues'.

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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., existing issue ID), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like bulk updates or creation tools, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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