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 meeting' which implies a mutation, but fails to describe critical behaviors: what permissions are required, whether updates are partial or full, if attachments are replaced or appended, rate limits, or error conditions. The API endpoint hint ('PATCH') suggests partial updates, but this is not explicitly explained. The description 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 concise but under-specified. It consists of a tautological phrase, a category tag, and an API endpoint—each element is relevant but lacks depth. While not verbose, it fails to convey necessary information efficiently, making it more sparse than optimally concise. The structure is straightforward but incomplete.

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 4 parameters (including nested objects) and no annotations or output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain the update behavior, response format, error handling, or security requirements. For a tool that modifies data, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to operate correctly and safely.

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 clear parameter descriptions in the input schema (e.g., 'ID of the meeting', 'Meeting object'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it does not explain the structure of the 'meeting' object or clarify 'attachments' handling. However, since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 meeting. [Project Management/Meetings] PATCH /rest/v1.0/meetings/{id}' is a tautology that restates the tool name ('update_meeting') with minimal elaboration. It adds a category tag and API endpoint, but does not specify what aspects of a meeting can be updated or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'update_meeting_v1_1' or 'create_meeting'. The purpose is vague beyond the basic verb.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing meeting ID), compare it to similar tools (e.g., 'create_meeting' or 'update_meeting_v1_1'), or indicate any constraints. Without such context, an agent cannot make informed decisions about its application.

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