Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Update drawing set', which implies a mutation operation, but fails to specify whether this requires specific permissions, is idempotent, has side effects, or returns any data. The inclusion of '[Project Management/Drawings] PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/drawing_sets/{id}' hints at an HTTP method and path, but does not clarify behavioral aspects like error handling or response format.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core action ('Update drawing set'), followed by contextual tags and the API path. There is no wasted verbiage, though the structure could be improved by separating functional description from technical details. It efficiently conveys the essential information in a compact form.

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 of an update operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what happens on success (e.g., returns the updated drawing set object) or failure, nor does it cover permissions, idempotency, or side effects. For a mutation tool with four parameters, this lack of contextual detail leaves significant 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 clear descriptions for all parameters (project_id, id, name, date). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as format examples for 'date' or constraints on 'name'. However, since the schema is fully documented, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not detract from the schema's clarity.

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 set' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It lacks specificity about what 'update' entails (e.g., modifying fields like name or date) and does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_drawing' or 'update_drawing_discipline_project', which are also present in the sibling list.

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 project_id and id), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'create_drawing_set' or 'delete_drawing_set'. Usage is entirely implied, leaving the agent without actionable context.

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