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 Location' which implies a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on partial updates, or error conditions. The mention of 'PATCH' hints at partial updates, but this is insufficient 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 extremely concise with a single sentence, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It front-loads the core action ('Update Location') but wastes characters on redundant endpoint details that don't aid the agent. It lacks structure to guide usage.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested object parameter ('location'), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'location' object contains, the update behavior, or expected outcomes. For a 3-parameter update tool, this minimal description leaves significant gaps for the 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 all three parameters (id, project_id, location) having descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. The baseline is 3 because the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with additional context like format examples or constraints.

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 Location. [Core/Project] PATCH /rest/v1.0/locations/{id}' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'update_location' with minimal additional context. It mentions the HTTP method and endpoint but doesn't specify what 'Location' refers to (e.g., a physical site, a project location) or what fields can be updated. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'update_project_location' or 'update_location_admin'.

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. With sibling tools like 'update_project_location', 'update_location_admin', and 'create_location' present, there's no indication of the specific context or prerequisites for this tool. The agent receives no usage instructions.

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