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' implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the update is destructive or reversible, rate limits, or error conditions. The API endpoint (PUT) suggests idempotency, but this isn't explained. The description adds minimal context beyond the name.

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 endpoint. It's front-loaded with the key action. However, the inclusion of the full endpoint path adds technical detail that may not be necessary for an AI agent, slightly reducing efficiency. Overall, it's compact with minimal waste.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool with three required parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on permissions, side effects, error handling, and what the update entails (e.g., partial vs. full updates). The API endpoint provides some context, but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral details needed for safe 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%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain relationships between parameters or provide usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 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 'Update drawing discipline' states the verb and resource, but is vague about what 'drawing discipline' entails and lacks specificity. It includes an API endpoint path which provides technical context but doesn't clarify the business purpose. The description distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the specific resource, but remains minimal.

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 includes a category '[Project Management/Drawings]' which hints at context, but offers no explicit when/when-not instructions or references to sibling tools. The agent must infer usage from the endpoint path alone.

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