Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Update' which implies mutation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about permissions required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on partial updates, error conditions, or response format. The mention of PATCH method is useful but insufficient for behavioral understanding.

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 appropriately concise - a single sentence that states the core purpose followed by API endpoint details. It's front-loaded with the essential information. The inclusion of the endpoint path adds value without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes a successful update, what fields can be modified in the direct_cost object, error scenarios, or authentication requirements. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without additional 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%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have explained the relationship between project_id, id, and the direct_cost object being updated.

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 clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('Direct Cost Item'), and includes the API endpoint path which provides additional context about the resource hierarchy (projects/{project_id}/direct_costs/{id}). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the specificity of 'Direct Cost Item' within 'Construction Financials/Direct Costs' helps distinguish it from other update tools.

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 description doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or when this tool should be preferred over other update operations. With many sibling tools present, this lack of differentiation is a significant gap.

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