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' which implies a mutation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: it doesn't mention permissions required, whether the update is partial or full, what happens on success/failure, or any side effects. The description adds minimal value beyond the obvious implication of mutation.

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 single sentence fragment that states the action and resource, followed by a category tag and API path in brackets. While not verbose, it fails to provide necessary context, making it inefficient in terms of information density. The structure is front-loaded 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 tool is a mutation (update) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like idempotency, error conditions, or what the tool returns. For a 5-parameter update tool with zero annotation coverage, the description should do more to explain the operation's context and outcomes.

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 already documents all 5 parameters with descriptions and enum values for 'status'. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., that 'id' identifies the record to update) or usage notes. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 attendee record' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. It specifies the verb ('Update') and resource ('meeting attendee record'), but lacks any detail about what fields can be updated or the context. It doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'create_meeting_attendee_record' or 'delete_meeting_attendee_record' beyond the action 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 doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing an existing record), constraints, or when other tools might be more appropriate. The sibling tool list includes 'create_meeting_attendee_record' and 'delete_meeting_attendee_record', but the description doesn't help differentiate between these operations.

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