Procore MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Update Lookahead Task' and includes 'PATCH', implying a mutation operation, but fails to describe critical behaviors: whether it requires specific permissions, if updates are partial or full, what happens to unmentioned fields, or the response format. The '[Legacy]' tag hints at deprecated status but without explanation. This is inadequate 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 concise, consisting of a single sentence with the tool name, category tag, and HTTP details. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Update Lookahead Task'), though the content is minimal. There is no wasted verbiage, but the brevity contributes to under-specification rather than efficient clarity.

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 (12 parameters, 5 required, mutation tool) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or response structure, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The '[Legacy]' tag is vague and unhelpful without further explanation.

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 12 parameters documented in the input schema (e.g., 'project_id' as 'Unique identifier for the project'). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here as the schema fully defines parameters.

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 Lookahead Task. [Project Management/Schedule (Legacy)] PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/schedule/lookahead_tasks/{id}' is a tautology that restates the tool name and adds only HTTP method and path details. It lacks a specific verb-resource-action statement, failing to clarify what 'update' entails beyond the name. The '[Project Management/Schedule (Legacy)]' tag provides minimal context but does not differentiate it from sibling tools like 'create_lookahead_task' or 'delete_lookahead_task'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as requiring an existing lookahead task to update, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'create_lookahead_task' or 'delete_lookahead_task' for context. This absence leaves the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios.

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