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 implies a mutation ('Update') but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the update is reversible, or any side effects. The REST endpoint (PATCH) hints at partial updates, but this is not explicitly explained, leaving significant 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 and front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by a category and REST endpoint. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though the endpoint detail might be more technical than needed for an AI agent. Every sentence serves a purpose, but 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 a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral context, error handling, or return values, which are critical for safe and effective tool invocation. The high schema coverage does not compensate for these omissions.

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 and an enum for 'earlyPayClassification'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, which is adequate given the high coverage, but it does not compensate for any gaps or provide context on parameter interactions.

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 ('Payments Beneficiary Classification'), but it is vague about what 'classification' entails and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'approve_payments_beneficiary'. It includes a category tag '[Construction Financials/Payments]' and a REST endpoint, which adds some context but lacks specificity on the operation's effect.

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 sibling list includes tools like 'approve_payments_beneficiary', but the description does not mention any prerequisites, conditions, or distinctions, leaving the agent without usage context.

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