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. It states 'Update RFQ Quote' and includes a PATCH method, implying a mutation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether updates are partial or full, idempotency, side effects, or error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks essential context for safe invocation.

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—it wastes space on redundant name restatement and technical HTTP details without adding value. It is front-loaded with the tool name but lacks informative content. While brief, it fails to be effectively concise due to missing essential information.

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 (5 required parameters including a nested object), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain the rfq_quote object structure, update behavior, or expected outcomes. For a mutation tool with significant input requirements, this leaves the agent poorly equipped to use it correctly.

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 parameter descriptions (e.g., 'RFQ ID', 'RFQ Quote ID', 'Unique identifier for the project.'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema itself is well-documented. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 Quote. [Construction Financials/Commitments] PATCH /rest/v1.0/rfqs/{rfq_id}/quotes/{id}' restates the tool name ('Update RFQ Quote') without adding meaningful specificity. It does not explain what an RFQ quote is, what fields can be updated, or how it differs from other update tools. The bracketed context and HTTP method are technical details but do not clarify the purpose for an AI agent.

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., existing RFQ and quote IDs), related tools (e.g., create_rfq_quote), or scenarios where this update is appropriate. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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