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 fails to indicate that this is a mutation operation (PATCH implies update), what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, or any side effects (e.g., impact on related revisions). The description is silent on critical behavioral traits beyond the implied update action.

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 but under-specified. 'Update Drawing' is too brief, and the added endpoint details are technical clutter that don't enhance clarity for an AI agent. While not verbose, it fails to front-load useful information, making it inefficient despite its brevity.

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 (7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It does not explain the update behavior, required fields, or what happens to unspecified parameters. Without annotations or output schema, the agent lacks context on mutation effects, error conditions, or response format, leaving significant gaps for a tool with multiple parameters.

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 each parameter documented in the schema (e.g., 'Drawing number', 'Obsolete status'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3, 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 'Update Drawing' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It lacks specificity about what 'Update' entails (e.g., modifying fields like number, title, obsolete status) and does not differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., update_drawing_v1_1). While it includes a category '[Project Management/Drawings]' and endpoint 'PATCH /rest/v1.0/drawing_areas/{drawing_area_id}/drawings/{id}', these are technical details that don't clarify the functional purpose for an AI agent.

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., needing drawing_area_id and id), exclusions, or sibling tools like update_drawing_v1_1. The agent is left with no usage context beyond the generic 'Update Drawing' phrase.

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