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 category' and implies a PATCH operation, indicating a mutation, but fails to describe critical behaviors: required permissions, whether the update is idempotent, error conditions (e.g., invalid IDs), or side effects. The description lacks transparency about what the tool does beyond the basic verb.

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 functional statement and API details. However, the functional statement is overly brief and lacks substance, while the API context is useful but could be integrated more effectively. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, but the front-loaded content ('Update meeting category') is vague, reducing overall effectiveness.

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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the expected outcome, error handling, or behavioral nuances. The API path hint is helpful but insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's full context, especially compared to more detailed sibling tools in the list.

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 category'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Since the schema is comprehensive, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract from the schema's documentation.

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 category' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It lacks specificity about what 'update' entails (e.g., modifying fields like name or status) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'update_meeting' or 'update_meeting_topic', which are present in the list. The bracketed text '[Project Management/Meetings] PATCH /rest/v1.0/meeting_categories/{id}' provides API context but does not clarify the tool's functional purpose.

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 category ID), exclusions, or related tools like 'create_meeting_category' or 'delete_meeting_category_v2_0' from the sibling list. Without such context, an agent cannot make informed decisions about tool selection.

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