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, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects (e.g., impact on financial data), or rate limits. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero 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 a single sentence that includes the tool name and API path, which is concise but under-specified. It front-loads the purpose but wastes space on low-value details like the API endpoint '[Construction Financials/Currency Configurations] PATCH /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/projects/{project_id}/currency_configuration' that do not aid the agent in tool selection or invocation.

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 (6 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or the scope of updates (e.g., partial vs. full configuration). For a mutation tool with no structured behavioral data, this leaves critical gaps for the agent.

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 six parameters with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters (e.g., how 'multicurrency_enabled' interacts with 'currency_iso_code') or providing examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states 'Update Project Currency Configuration', which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it lacks specificity about what aspects of currency configuration are updated (e.g., display format, exchange rates) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'update_company_currency_configuration' or 'create_project_currency_configuration', making it vague in 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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., existing project currency configuration), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'create_project_currency_configuration' or 'update_company_currency_configuration', leaving the agent without usage context.

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