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 states 'Update Equipment Maintenance Log' and includes a PATCH method hint, implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose permissions needed, side effects, rate limits, or response format. 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 a single sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose and includes an API endpoint hint. It's front-loaded with the core action, though the bracketed category and endpoint details could be considered slightly extraneous but not wasteful.

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 a 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'update' entails (e.g., partial vs. full updates), success/failure conditions, or return values, leaving critical gaps for agent 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%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as usage examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 states the tool updates an equipment maintenance log, which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'update_equipment_maintenance_log' (which appears to be the same tool) or other maintenance-related tools in the list, making it vague about its specific scope compared to alternatives.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage instructions beyond the basic action implied by the name.

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