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 mutation) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it overwrites or merges rates, validation rules, error conditions, or side effects. The HTTP method (PATCH) hints at partial updates, but this isn't explained. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Update Project Exchange Rates') and includes supplementary details (category, HTTP method, endpoint). There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from technical 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 (mutation of financial data), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error handling, or important constraints (e.g., format of exchange_rates array). For a tool with 3 required parameters and significant domain implications, more context is needed.

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 (e.g., 'ID of the company', 'Project exchange rates'). The description adds no additional param semantics beyond the schema. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 Exchange Rates'), and includes a category hint ('Construction Financials/Currency Configurations') and HTTP method (PATCH). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_project_exchange_rates' by specifying an update operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'update_company_exchange_rates' or other currency-related tools, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 (e.g., existing exchange rates to update), exclusions, or compare with siblings like 'update_company_exchange_rates' or 'get_project_exchange_rates'. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

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