Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description mentions 'PATCH /rest/v1.0/resources/{id}' which implies a partial update via HTTP PATCH method, but doesn't explain what permissions are required, whether this is a destructive operation, what happens to unspecified fields, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 extremely concise (just 8 words plus API endpoint), but this brevity comes at the cost of clarity and completeness. While not verbose, it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The API endpoint information is useful but doesn't compensate for the lack of functional explanation.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'resource' in this system, what fields can be updated via the resource object, what permissions are required, or what the operation returns. The API endpoint provides technical context but doesn't address the functional gaps needed for an AI agent to use this tool effectively.

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 all three parameters (id, project_id, resource) having clear descriptions in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 resource' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It lacks specificity about what 'resource' refers to in this context (e.g., personnel, equipment, budget items) and what fields can be updated. The bracketed text '[Project Management/Schedule (Legacy)]' provides some domain context but doesn't clarify the action or resource type.

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. With numerous sibling tools (over 1,000 listed) including many other update operations (update_equipment, update_project, update_resource_v1_1, etc.), there's no indication of how this specific 'update_resource' differs from similar tools or when it's the appropriate choice.

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