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' which implies a mutation, but does not disclose required permissions, whether it's idempotent, side effects, or error handling. The mention of 'PATCH' hints at partial updates, but this is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that includes the tool name, domain context, and API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more informative.

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?

For a mutation tool with 5 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks essential context such as required permissions, expected behavior, error conditions, and what the update operation entails (e.g., partial vs. full updates).

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 the 5 parameters (id, project_id, commitment_id, attachments, requisition). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting 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') and resource ('Requisition (Subcontractor Invoice)'), and includes the domain context '[Construction Financials/Commitments]'. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_requisition_subcontractor_invoice_v1_1' or 'bulk_update_subcontractor_invoice_requisitions_items', but the verb and resource are specific.

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 the API endpoint 'PATCH /rest/v1.0/requisitions/{id}', but does not explain prerequisites, when to choose this over bulk or versioned updates, or any constraints.

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