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' in the API path, implying a partial update, but doesn't disclose critical behaviors like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, side effects, or error handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational impact.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core action. However, the API path detail, while informative, could be considered extraneous for an AI agent focused on functional understanding. It's efficient but could be more streamlined by omitting the technical endpoint.

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 tool's complexity (mutation with nested objects, 4 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what an 'Observation Item' is, what fields can be updated in the 'observation' object, or the expected response format. For a PATCH operation, this leaves too much undefined for reliable agent use.

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 documents all parameters (id, project_id, observation, attachments). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as the structure of the 'observation' object or deprecation details for 'attachments'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 action ('Update') and resource ('Observation Item'), but it's vague about what specifically gets updated. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'update_observation_item_response_log' or 'update_observation_type', which could lead to confusion. The inclusion of the API path '[Project Management/Observations] PATCH /rest/v1.0/observations/items/{id}' adds technical context but doesn't clarify the functional purpose 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'update_observation_type', 'update_observation_item_response_log'), the description fails to specify its unique context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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