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 drawing discipline,' implying a mutation operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the update is destructive or reversible, rate limits, or what the response contains. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single sentence that includes the core action and API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the essential information, though the endpoint details could be considered extraneous for an AI agent. There is minimal waste, but it lacks structural elements like usage notes.

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 is a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'update' entails behaviorally, what the return values are, or any error conditions. For a tool with three required parameters and no structured safety hints, this leaves critical gaps for an AI agent.

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 all three parameters (project_id, id, name) well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 where 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 clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('drawing discipline'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'update_drawing_discipline_project' or 'update_drawing_discipline_project_v1_0', which appear to serve similar purposes, so it lacks explicit sibling 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions a context category '[Project Management/Drawings]' and an API endpoint, but offers no explicit when/when-not instructions or references to sibling tools, leaving usage context implied at best.

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