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. 'Update' implies a mutation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what happens to existing data, whether changes are reversible, or any side effects. It also lacks information about rate limits, error conditions, or response format. This is inadequate 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 extremely concise ('Update Project Location') but this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified. While it's front-loaded with the core action, it lacks necessary detail. The additional API path information '[Core/Project] PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/locations/{location_id}' is technical but doesn't add meaningful user-facing context. The description fails to earn its place with sufficient explanatory value.

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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'updating a project location' entails, what fields can be modified, what the expected outcome is, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool that modifies project data, this level of documentation is insufficient for safe and 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 four parameters (project_id, location_id, node_name, parent_id) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 Location' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It lacks a specific verb-resource combination and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_location' or 'update_project'. The description fails to clarify what aspect of a project location is being updated.

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. There are many sibling update tools (e.g., 'update_location', 'update_project'), but the description offers no context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or distinctions from other update operations. This leaves the agent with no usage direction.

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