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 indicates a PATCH operation (implying mutation) but does not disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the update is reversible, side effects, or rate limits. The mention of '[Construction Financials/Payments]' adds minimal context but lacks actionable 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 a single sentence that includes the action, resource, category, and API endpoint. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, though it could be more informative. The structure is efficient but 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 mutation nature (update via PATCH), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what the setting affects, the impact of the update, or the response format. For a financial update tool with three required parameters, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples or constraints). The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since 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 states the action ('Update') and resource ('Project Payor Pays Setting'), but is vague about what that setting actually controls. It repeats the tool name and lacks specificity about the financial context beyond the category tag '[Construction Financials/Payments]'. It does not distinguish from sibling tools, which include many other update operations.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or any sibling tools for comparison. It fails to help the agent decide when this update is appropriate.

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