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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'PATCH', implying a partial update, but does not clarify if this is idempotent, what permissions are required, or potential side effects like validation runs. The description lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or response format, leaving significant gaps 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 concise with two parts: a brief purpose statement and an API endpoint reference. It is front-loaded with the core action, though the endpoint detail may be redundant in some contexts. There is no wasted verbiage, but it could be more structured to separate purpose from technical details.

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 5-parameter update tool with nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the 'prime_contract' object structure, the effect of 'run_configurable_validations', or the multipart/form-data requirement for attachments. The lack of behavioral and output details makes it incomplete for safe agent invocation.

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 in the input schema (e.g., 'ID of the Prime Contract', 'Prime Contract object'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema is comprehensive. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage by the schema alone, though the description does not enhance understanding.

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 Prime Contract. [Construction Financials/Prime Contracts] PATCH /rest/v1.0/prime_contract/{id}' is largely tautological, restating the tool name and adding minimal context. It specifies the verb 'Update' and resource 'Prime Contract', but lacks specificity about what fields can be updated or the scope of changes. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'update_prime_contract_v2_0' or 'update_prime_contract_line_item', leaving ambiguity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing prime contract ID, or compare it to sibling tools like 'create_prime_contract' or 'update_prime_contract_v2_0'. There is no explicit or implied context for usage, making it difficult for an agent to determine applicability.

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