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 Direct Cost Item' and includes a PATCH endpoint, implying a mutation operation, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: required permissions, whether updates are partial or full, side effects (e.g., on attachments), error conditions, or response format. The mention of 'attachments' in the schema hints at complexity, but the description adds no context.

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 (one sentence with endpoint details) but under-specified. It front-loads the core action ('Update Direct Cost Item') but wastes space on redundant category labels and HTTP details that add little value for an AI agent. It could be more structured by explaining scope or constraints.

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 (4 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not cover behavioral aspects like mutation impact, error handling, or return values, nor does it relate to siblings. For a mutation tool with rich input schema but no output or annotations, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project.' for project_id). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, not explaining the 'item' object structure or 'attachments' handling. However, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema adequately documents parameters without description assistance.

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 Direct Cost Item. [Construction Financials/Direct Costs] PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/direct_costs/{id}' restates the tool name ('Update Direct Cost Item') and adds only a category label and HTTP method/endpoint. It lacks a specific verb-resource-action statement (e.g., what fields can be updated, what 'Direct Cost Item' represents) and does not distinguish it from siblings like 'update_direct_cost_item_v1_1' or 'update_direct_cost_line_item', making it vague beyond the obvious update operation.

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 (e.g., existing direct cost items), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., 'update_direct_cost_item_v1_1', 'update_direct_cost_line_item', 'create_direct_cost_item'), leaving the agent with no context for selection.

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