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 Forward For Review' and includes a PATCH method, implying a mutation. However, it fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: what permissions are required, whether this action is reversible, if it triggers notifications, or what the typical outcome is (e.g., changes RFI status). The description is too vague to inform safe or 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 brief but not efficiently structured. It repeats the tool name, adds a category tag ([Project Management/RFI]), and includes the HTTP method and endpoint—information often redundant in an MCP context. While concise, it wastes space on low-value details instead of front-loading actionable purpose. It could be more focused on user guidance.

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 (a mutation tool for RFI workflows), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's role in RFI lifecycle, expected outcomes, error conditions, or side effects. For a tool that likely changes assignment and status, this omission leaves significant gaps for an agent to operate correctly.

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 fully documents parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but with high coverage, the baseline is 3. Since there are only 3 parameters (project_id, id, forwardee_ids) and the schema descriptions are clear (e.g., forwardee_ids constraints), the description's lack of additional detail is acceptable, warranting a 4.

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 Forward For Review. [Project Management/RFI] PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/rfis/{id}/forward_for_review' is largely tautological, restating the tool name and adding only minimal context (RFI in Project Management). It lacks a clear, specific verb+resource statement explaining what 'forward for review' actually does (e.g., reassigns an RFI to specific users for review). While it mentions RFI, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'update_rfi' or 'update_rfi_reply'.

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 (e.g., RFI must be in a certain state), exclusions, or related tools. Given the many sibling tools (e.g., 'update_rfi', 'update_rfi_reply'), the absence of any comparative context leaves the agent with no usage direction.

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