Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions a PATCH operation, implying a partial update, but does not specify required permissions, whether emails are sent by default, what happens to attachments, or the response format. The description lacks critical details about mutation behavior, side effects, and error handling for a tool with five parameters.

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 tautological title and a technical endpoint reference. It is front-loaded but under-specified, wasting no words yet failing to provide necessary explanatory content. The structure is efficient but lacks substance, making it lean yet incomplete.

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 5-parameter update tool with nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain the purpose of updating assignments versus punch items themselves, behavioral implications, or expected outcomes. For a mutation tool in a crowded sibling set, this leaves significant gaps in understanding.

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 parameters. The description does not add any semantic context beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters (e.g., how 'send_emails' interacts with 'punch_item_assignment' changes) or usage examples. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 Punch Item Assignment' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It lacks a specific verb and resource scope, and does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'update_punch_item' or 'show_punch_assignment'. The inclusion of '[Project Management/Punch List] PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/punch_item_assignments/{id}' provides technical context but does not explain what the tool actually does in plain terms.

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. With many sibling tools related to punch items (e.g., 'update_punch_item', 'show_punch_assignment', 'list_punch_items'), the description fails to indicate specific scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions for this assignment update operation. This leaves the agent without direction on appropriate usage.

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