Procore MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'PATCH' which implies partial update, but doesn't specify whether this is destructive, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, or what happens on failure. The description is minimal and lacks critical behavioral context for a mutation operation.

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 - just one sentence plus the API endpoint. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the inclusion of the API endpoint '[Construction Financials/Prime Contracts] PATCH /rest/v1.0/prime_contracts/{prime_contract_id}/line_items/{id}' adds technical detail that might be redundant for an AI 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?

For a mutation tool with 4 required parameters (including a nested object), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what fields can be updated in the line_item object, what validation occurs, what the response looks like, or error conditions. The technical endpoint reference doesn't compensate for these gaps.

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 already documents all four parameters with basic descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. It mentions the API endpoint structure which implies the relationship between prime_contract_id and id parameters, but doesn't explain the line_item object structure or provide examples.

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 clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('Prime Contract line item'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'create_prime_contract_line_item' by indicating modification rather than creation. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from other update tools in the list.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing existing line items), exclusions, or compare with similar tools like 'update_prime_contract_line_item_v2_0_project' or 'update_prime_contract_line_item_v2_0_project_v2_0' from the sibling list.

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