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 RFQ Response' and includes a PATCH endpoint, implying a mutation operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the update is partial or full, side effects, or error handling. This is a significant gap 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 action, resource, and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though the bracketed '[Construction Financials/Commitments]' could be better integrated. There is no wasted verbiage.

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 updating an RFQ response with five required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on the update operation's behavior, expected outcomes, error conditions, or how it fits into the broader workflow, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 already documents all five parameters (rfq_id, id, project_id, contract_id, rfq_response). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, such as the structure of 'rfq_response' or relationships between IDs. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 states the verb ('Update') and resource ('RFQ Response'), which is clear but basic. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_rfq' or 'update_rfq_quote', leaving the scope vague. The mention of '[Construction Financials/Commitments]' adds some context but is not fully integrated into the purpose statement.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing RFQ response to update, or differentiate from other update tools in the sibling list. This leaves the agent without contextual usage cues.

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