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 project task' which implies a mutation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on partial updates, or error handling. The mention of 'PATCH' hints at partial updates, but this is not elaborated. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic operation.

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 brief but includes extraneous details like '[Preconstruction/Estimating]' and the full API endpoint path, which may not be necessary for an AI agent. It is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Update project task'), but the additional technical details do not add value for tool selection and could be considered clutter.

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 of a mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks information on what the tool returns, error conditions, side effects, or any context about the task entity. The agent would be left guessing about the outcome and behavior, making this description incomplete 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 fully documents all 7 parameters. The description adds no additional semantic information about parameters beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples, formatting hints, or relationships between parameters). This meets the baseline 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 clearly states the action ('Update project task') and the resource ('project task'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create_project_task_v2_0_company' or 'delete_project_task_v2_0_company' by specifying the 'update' operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other update tools (e.g., 'update_project_task_v2_0_company_v2_0'), which slightly reduces clarity.

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 mentions '[Preconstruction/Estimating]' and the API endpoint, but this does not help an AI agent decide between this tool and other update or task-related tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or sibling tool distinctions.

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