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 Property Damage' and includes 'PATCH', implying a mutation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether updates are partial/full, side effects, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with 10 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 line with three parts: tool name restatement, category tag, and HTTP endpoint. It is concise but under-specified—the category and endpoint add some context but do not earn their place as helpful for an AI agent. Structure is minimal, lacking front-loaded clarity.

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 (10 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It does not explain what 'update' entails, return values, error handling, or system behavior. For a tool with significant input requirements and mutation impact, more completeness is needed to guide proper usage.

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 each parameter well-documented in the schema (e.g., 'Description of event in Rich Text format'). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema. According to guidelines, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 Property Damage. [Project Management/Incidents] PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/incidents/property_damages/{id}' restates the tool name ('Update Property Damage') without adding meaningful specificity. It includes a category tag and HTTP method, but lacks a clear verb+resource definition that distinguishes it from siblings like 'update_incident' or 'update_property_damage' (if multiple exist). The purpose is vague 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context (e.g., only for existing property damage records), or sibling tools like 'create_property_damage' or 'destroy_property_damage' that handle related operations. Usage is entirely implicit.

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