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 RFQ' which implies a mutation operation, but it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, side effects, or error conditions. The mention of 'PATCH /rest/v1.0/rfqs/{id}' hints at a partial update via HTTP PATCH, but this is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior fully.

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 overly concise to the point of being under-specified. 'Update RFQ. [Construction Financials/Commitments] PATCH /rest/v1.0/rfqs/{id}' is not front-loaded with useful information; it includes technical details (the API endpoint) without clarifying the tool's purpose or usage. It fails to communicate effectively in a structured manner.

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 a mutation tool with 4 required parameters, nested objects, and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what an RFQ is, what fields can be updated, the expected response, or any error handling. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool correctly without additional external knowledge.

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 parameters documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the relationship between 'id', 'project_id', 'contract_id', and the 'rfq' object. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 RFQ' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name, providing no additional clarity. It does not specify what 'RFQ' stands for (Request for Quotation) or what aspects are updated, and it fails to distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_rfq_quote' or 'update_rfq_response'.

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?

There are no usage guidelines provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or any contextual constraints. It lacks any guidance on appropriate scenarios or exclusions.

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