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. While 'Update' implies a mutation, the description does not disclose any behavioral traits—such as required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens to unspecified fields, or error conditions. It lacks critical information for safe and effective use.

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 and front-loaded with the core action. It consists of a single sentence followed by the API endpoint, which is efficient. However, the inclusion of the full API path might be slightly redundant for a tool description, though it does add context without excessive 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?

Given the complexity of an update operation, the absence of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key aspects like mutation behavior, error handling, or response format. For a tool that modifies financial data, this lack of context is a significant gap.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between parameters or usage examples). Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Early Pay Program'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It also includes the API endpoint path, which reinforces the context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_early_pay_program' or 'deactivate_early_pay_program', which is why it doesn't achieve a perfect score.

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. There are sibling tools like 'create_early_pay_program' and 'deactivate_early_pay_program', but the description does not mention them or specify prerequisites, such as needing an existing early pay program ID. This leaves the agent without contextual usage instructions.

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