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 implies a mutation operation ('Update') but doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response contains. The API path hint suggests a PATCH operation, but this is insufficient for a mutation tool with 33 parameters and no annotation coverage.

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 brief but under-specified rather than concise. It consists of a tautological phrase and an API path, which doesn't efficiently convey purpose or usage. While not verbose, it fails to provide necessary context, making it less helpful than a well-structured, concise description would be.

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 (33 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the update behavior, return values, or error conditions. For a high-stakes update tool in a construction financials context, this lack of completeness poses a risk for correct 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%, so the schema fully documents all 33 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description, which applies here.

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' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It mentions the API path '[Construction Financials/Prime Contracts] PATCH /rest/v2.0/companies/{company_id}/projects/{project_id}/prime_contracts/{prime_contract_id}', which provides some context but doesn't clearly articulate what the tool does beyond the name. It lacks a distinct verb+resource combination that differentiates it from siblings.

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, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. Given the complex sibling list including other update tools, this absence is a significant gap, leaving the agent without direction on tool selection.

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