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 mentions 'PATCH' and an API endpoint, implying a partial update, but does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on validation failures (hinted by 'run_configurable_validations' param), or typical response format. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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 sentences, front-loading the core action. However, it includes redundant information like the API endpoint which may not add value for an AI agent. The structure is clear but could be more focused on human-readable guidance rather than technical details.

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 (5 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It does not explain what a purchase order contract entails, what fields can be updated, or the implications of updates (e.g., financial impacts). Without annotations or output schema, the agent lacks context on safety, side effects, or expected results.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. It does not explain the relationship between 'purchase_order_contract' object and other params, or provide examples of typical updates. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 ('Purchase Order Contract'), which is clear but basic. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_purchase_order_contract_detail_line_item' or 'update_purchase_order_contract_line_item', leaving ambiguity about scope. The inclusion of '[Construction Financials/Commitments]' and the API endpoint adds some context but doesn't fully specify what 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'update_purchase_order_contract_detail_line_item'), the description fails to indicate whether this is for high-level contract updates or specific line items. There is no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases.

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