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. It states 'Update' (implying mutation) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on partial updates. The API path hints at PATCH semantics but lacks explicit guidance.

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 parts: a brief purpose statement and an API path. It's front-loaded with the core action. However, the API path could be considered extraneous clutter that doesn't aid the AI agent directly.

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?

For a mutation tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the update behavior, error conditions, or return values. The API path adds some context but doesn't compensate for the lack of behavioral and output information.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, not even mentioning key parameters like 'id' and 'project_id' are required. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the 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 'Update project File' states the verb ('Update') and resource ('project File'), but it's vague about what 'project File' means and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools. The API path '[Core/Documents] PATCH /rest/v1.0/files/{id}' adds technical context but doesn't clarify the purpose beyond the name.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or sibling tools like 'create_project_file' or 'delete_project_file' from the list. Usage is implied only by the action 'Update'.

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