Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Update' (implying a mutation/write operation) but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information on permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the update affects. The PATCH endpoint hint suggests partial updates, but this isn't explicitly stated. The description is minimal and lacks critical behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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—a single sentence fragment with an API endpoint. It's front-loaded with the core action but lacks any explanatory structure. While efficient, it under-specifies rather than being optimally concise, as it omits necessary context that would help the agent.

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 (4 required parameters including a nested object), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'Potential Change Order' is, what fields can be updated in 'change_order', or what the tool returns. For a mutation tool with significant input requirements, this leaves the agent with insufficient context.

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 all parameters documented in the schema (id, project_id, contract_id, change_order). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. According to rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 Potential Change Order' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It includes a category tag '[Construction Financials/Change Orders]' and API endpoint 'PATCH /rest/v1.0/potential_change_orders/{id}', which hints at context but doesn't specify what the tool actually does beyond the obvious 'update' action. No distinction from sibling tools is provided.

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?

The description provides zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'create_potential_change_order' or 'update_potential_change_order_line_item'. The agent receives no usage direction.

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