Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Update meeting topic' which implies a mutation, but fails to describe permissions required, whether it's idempotent, side effects (e.g., on attachments), or error conditions. The mention of 'PATCH' in brackets hints at partial updates but is not explained. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The inclusion of '[Project Management/Meetings] PATCH /rest/v1.0/meeting_topics/{id}' adds some technical context without cluttering. However, the core description is too sparse to be truly helpful.

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 (5 parameters including nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It does not explain the update behavior, return values, error handling, or relationship to sibling tools. For a mutation tool with multiple required IDs and an object parameter, more context is needed to use it correctly.

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 schema (e.g., 'ID of the meeting topic'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, not even clarifying the structure of 'meeting_topic' object or 'attachments' array. However, with full schema coverage, the baseline score is 3 as 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 topic' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It lacks specificity about what 'update' entails (e.g., modifying fields like title, description, status) and does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_meeting_topic_v1_1' or 'update_meeting'. It provides minimal value beyond the name.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing meeting and project IDs), exclusions, or sibling tools. The agent is left with no context for tool selection, which is critical given the many update-related siblings in the list.

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