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 Cost Item', implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on partial updates, or error handling. The API path suggests a PUT operation, but no additional context is given.

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 two parts: a brief purpose statement and an API path. It's front-loaded with the action, but the API path might be overly technical for an AI agent. No wasted sentences, though it could be more informative.

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 (24 parameters, 6 required, mutation tool) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a cost item is, the update semantics, or expected outcomes. For a mutation tool with no structured safety hints, more context 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%, so the schema fully documents all 24 parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, not even mentioning key required fields like 'item_id' or 'company_id'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 Cost Item') and resource ('Cost Item'), but it's vague about what a 'Cost Item' is and doesn't distinguish it from siblings like 'update_cost_code' or 'update_direct_cost_item'. It includes a context tag '[Preconstruction/Cost Catalog]' and API path, which adds some specificity but not clear differentiation.

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 like 'create_cost_item_v2_0' or 'update_direct_cost_item'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing cost item ID, or exclusions. The API path hints at a RESTful update operation but doesn't provide usage rules.

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