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 the action ('Update') and includes an API path hint, but fails to describe critical behaviors: whether this is a mutation (implied but not explicit), permission requirements, side effects (e.g., if attachments replace or append), rate limits, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with potential destructive impact.

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 and front-loaded with the core action, but includes extraneous details like the API path ('PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/checklist/list_templates/{id}') and category tag ('[Project Management/Inspections]'), which don't aid the AI agent in tool selection. It could be more focused by omitting these implementation 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 (4 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the update behavior (partial vs. full), attachment upload specifics (multipart/form-data is only hinted in schema), or what the tool returns. For a mutation tool with rich input schema, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 parameters (id, project_id, list_template, attachments). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, such as format of list_template or attachment handling details. It meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but doesn't compensate with extra insights.

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 ('Project Checklist Template'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_project_checklist_template' by indicating modification rather than creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools in the list, such as 'update_checklist_inspection', which slightly limits sibling differentiation.

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 lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing template), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'update_checklist_template' or 'update_checklist_inspection'. This absence leaves the agent without usage direction.

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