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 of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Update' which implies a mutation, but doesn't disclose required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. The URL path hints at a PATCH operation, but this isn't explicitly explained. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious mutation intent.

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 functional statement and a technical URL path. There's no wasted verbiage, and it's front-loaded with the core action. However, the functional statement is overly brief and tautological, slightly reducing effectiveness despite efficient structure.

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 a mutation tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the update scope (partial vs. full), response format, error conditions, or domain context (e.g., compliance workflows). The URL path adds some technical detail but doesn't compensate for the lack of behavioral and output information.

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 9 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain valid status values or file ID formats). With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to.

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 requisition compliance document' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'update_requisition_compliance_document_v2_0'. It lacks specificity about what is being updated (e.g., status, notes, files) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'create_compliance_document_v2_0' or 'delete_requisition_compliance_document_v2_0'. The inclusion of a URL path adds technical context but doesn't clarify the functional purpose.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing document), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'create_compliance_document_v2_0' or 'delete_requisition_compliance_document_v2_0'. The agent is left without context for tool selection.

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