Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Update meeting' without indicating whether this is a partial or full update, if it requires specific permissions, what happens to attachments, or any side effects like notifications. This leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 extremely concise with 'Update meeting', which is efficient but under-specified. The additional API path '[Project Management/Meetings] PATCH /rest/v1.1/projects/{project_id}/meetings/{id}' provides technical context without redundancy, though it could be more informative.

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 4-parameter update tool with nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral details, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to operate effectively.

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 parameters (project_id, id, meeting, attachments). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, such as the structure of the 'meeting' object or how attachments are handled. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It does not clarify what aspects of a meeting can be updated or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'update_meeting' (without version suffix) or 'create_meeting_v1_1', leaving the purpose vague.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing meeting), constraints, or comparisons to sibling tools, offering no usage direction.

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