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 Plan Revision Log' without explaining that this is a PATCH operation, what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, or how attachments are handled (e.g., multipart/form-data requirement). 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 concise with two sentences, but it is not front-loaded with useful information. The first sentence is tautological, and the second includes technical details (PATCH endpoint) without clarifying the tool's purpose, making it inefficient despite its brevity.

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 (4 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on what the tool updates, behavioral traits, error handling, or output expectations, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool with multiple parameters.

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 (project_id, id, plan_revision_log, attachments). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the structure of plan_revision_log or attachment upload specifics, resulting in a baseline score.

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 Plan Revision Log' is a tautology that restates the tool name, providing no additional clarity. It does not specify what 'update' entails (e.g., modifying fields, adding attachments) or differentiate it from sibling tools like 'create_plan_revision_log' or 'delete_plan_revision_log', 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., existing plan revision logs), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'create_plan_revision_log' or 'list_plan_revision_logs', offering no usage context.

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