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 topic' which implies a mutation, but does not disclose required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on failure (e.g., validation errors). The mention of 'PATCH' in the description hints at partial updates, but this is not explicitly explained, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 'Update meeting topic.' as the core statement, followed by contextual tags '[Project Management/Meetings]' and the API endpoint 'PATCH /rest/v1.1/projects/{project_id}/meeting_topics/{id}'. It is front-loaded with the purpose, though the endpoint detail might be extraneous for an AI agent. Overall, it is efficient with minimal waste.

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, nested objects) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the expected behavior, error handling, or return values. For a mutation tool with multiple required IDs and an object parameter, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively, making it inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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 descriptions for parameters like 'project_id' and 'meeting_topic'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond the schema (e.g., explaining the structure of 'meeting_topic' object or 'attachments' array). Since the schema is well-documented, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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' states the verb ('Update') and resource ('meeting topic'), which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what aspects can be updated (e.g., title, description, status) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_meeting' or 'update_meeting_attendee_record', making it vague in comparison.

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 a project ID, meeting ID), exclusions, or related tools like 'create_meeting_topic' or 'delete_meeting_topic'. Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the input schema alone.

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