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' which implies a mutation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, side effects on timecard entries, or rate limits. The API path hints at a PATCH operation but lacks operational context. This is inadequate 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 concise with a single sentence, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The bracketed category and API path add technical detail but do not enhance clarity for an AI agent. It is front-loaded but lacks substance, making it mediocre in structure.

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 a configuration with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'rounding configuration' entails, the impact of updates, or expected return values. For a mutation tool with 3 parameters, this leaves significant gaps for the agent to infer behavior.

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 including enums for 'time_increment' and 'rule'. 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, though the description could have elaborated on the impact of these parameters.

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 rounding configuration' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'update_rounding_configuration' without adding clarity. It lacks a specific verb-resource combination and does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_rounding_configuration' or 'show_rounding_configuration', which are present in the sibling list. The bracketed category and API path are technical details but do not clarify the 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., existing configuration), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'create_rounding_configuration' or 'show_rounding_configuration'. The agent receives no usage context beyond the tool name.

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