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 states 'Update' implying a mutation, but fails to describe permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or side effects. The mention of '[Construction Financials/Payments]' and the PATCH endpoint adds minimal context but lacks actionable behavioral details.

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 sentences: one stating the action and another providing API context. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though the API detail may be extraneous. There is no wasted verbiage, making it efficient but slightly under-specified.

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 (mutation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain the impact of updates, error conditions, or return values, leaving significant gaps for the agent to understand the tool's full context and behavior.

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 schema (e.g., 'programId' as 'UUID of the early pay program to assign (null to remove)'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 Project Early Pay Programs' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal additional context. It lacks a specific verb and resource details, such as what aspect of early pay programs is being updated (e.g., assignment, settings). It does not differentiate from sibling tools, as no similar tools are listed, but the purpose remains vague.

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, such as scenarios for assigning or removing early pay programs from projects. There are no explicit alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent without context for appropriate usage.

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