Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Update Instruction' and includes 'PATCH', implying a mutation, but does not disclose critical traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on partial updates, or if it triggers side effects (e.g., emails via 'send_emails' parameter). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool with 18 parameters.

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 two parts: a brief purpose statement and an HTTP method/path. It avoids unnecessary words, but the purpose statement is under-specified (tautological). However, it's front-loaded and wastes no space, earning a high score for efficiency despite content gaps.

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's complexity (18 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the resource being updated, behavioral expectations, or return values. For a mutation tool with rich parameters, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively, making it incomplete.

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 all 18 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between fields like 'status' transitions or 'attachments' handling). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with additional insights.

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 Instruction. [Project Management/Daily Log] PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/instructions/{id}' restates the tool name ('Update Instruction') and adds an HTTP method and path, but does not specify what an 'Instruction' is or what fields can be updated. It lacks a clear verb+resource distinction from siblings like 'create_instructions' or 'delete_instruction', making it vague about its specific function beyond the name.

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 (e.g., 'create_instructions' for creation, 'delete_instruction' for deletion). It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing instruction ID, or contextual constraints, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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