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 RFI Reply' which implies a mutation operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the update is partial or full (PATCH method hints at partial), side effects, or error conditions. The API path adds technical context but not behavioral guidance.

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 but under-specified. 'Update RFI Reply' is too vague, though the API path adds useful technical detail. However, the structure is not front-loaded with actionable information for an agent, and the brevity comes at the cost of clarity. It avoids redundancy but fails to convey essential usage context.

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 an update operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'official' status means, the expected response format, error handling, or any constraints. For a mutation tool with multiple identifiers, more context is needed to guide proper use.

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 clear descriptions for project_id, rfi_id, id, and official. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema fully documents parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 RFI Reply' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It lacks specificity about what is being updated (e.g., content, status, metadata) and does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_rfi' or 'create_rfi_reply'. The addition of '[Project Management/RFI] PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/rfis/{rfi_id}/replies/{id}' provides API context but does not 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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing RFI reply), exclusions, or related tools like 'create_rfi_reply' or 'update_rfi'. Without any usage context, an agent cannot determine appropriate invocation scenarios.

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