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. It mentions 'PATCH' which implies a partial update, but does not disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on failure. The description adds minimal context beyond the HTTP method.

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 a single, efficient sentence that includes the tool name, context tag, and REST endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Update Monitoring Resource') and avoids unnecessary details, though it could be more structured for clarity.

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 an update tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks information on what the tool returns, error handling, or prerequisites (e.g., existing monitoring resource). The context tag and endpoint do not compensate for these gaps.

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 fully documents all 8 parameters. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between parameters like start_date and end_date). Baseline score of 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 states the verb ('Update') and resource ('Monitoring Resource'), which is clear. However, it does not specify what fields can be updated or differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_monitoring_resource' or 'delete_monitoring_resource', making it vague in scope.

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 (e.g., create or delete). The description includes a context tag '[Construction Financials/Budget]' and a REST endpoint, but these do not offer explicit usage instructions or exclusions.

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