Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Update Schedule Metadata' and includes a PATCH endpoint, implying a mutation operation, but does not specify whether this requires specific permissions, what happens to existing metadata, or if changes are reversible. The description lacks critical behavioral details like side effects, error conditions, or response format, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 two parts: a tautological statement and an endpoint reference. While it avoids unnecessary verbosity, it under-specifies by not front-loading essential information like what 'metadata' includes. The structure is minimal but fails to convey meaningful context efficiently, making it adequate but not exemplary.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'metadata' encompasses, the expected behavior, or the return values. For a tool that modifies schedule data, this lack of context leaves the agent without sufficient information to use it correctly, especially compared to more detailed sibling tools.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'project_id' and 'type'. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the structure of the 'type' object or valid values. However, since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation.

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 Schedule Metadata' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It mentions '[Project Management/Schedule (Legacy)] PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/schedule', which provides some context but does not specify what 'metadata' entails or how it differs from other schedule-related tools. Compared to sibling tools like 'update_schedule_integration_type', it fails to distinguish its specific 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, such as needing an existing schedule, or differentiate it from similar tools like 'update_schedule_integration_type' or 'update_project_schedule_settings'. Without any usage context, an agent cannot determine appropriate scenarios for invocation.

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