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' (implying a mutation) and includes the PATCH method, indicating partial updates. However, it lacks critical details: required permissions, whether changes are reversible, side effects, error conditions, or response format. The description is minimal and does not compensate for the absence of annotations.

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 sentences: one stating the purpose and domain, another providing the HTTP method and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core action. There is no wasted verbiage, though it could be more informative. The structure is efficient but under-specified.

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 parameters, nested object, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It does not explain the mutation behavior, required fields, the role of the 'view' parameter, or what the 'standard_cost_code' object contains. For a tool that performs updates in a financial/construction context, more guidance on usage and impact is needed to be complete.

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 fully documents parameters (id, view, company_id, standard_cost_code_list_id, standard_cost_code). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions the endpoint path '/rest/v1.0/standard_cost_codes/{id}', which implies 'id' is a path parameter, but this is already clear from the schema. Baseline score of 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 clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('Standard Cost Code'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It includes a domain context hint ('Construction Financials/Work Breakdown Structure') and the HTTP method (PATCH) with endpoint path, which adds technical specificity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_standard_cost_code' or 'update_standard_cost_code_list', though the endpoint path implies it's for updating an existing code by ID.

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., needing an existing cost code ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'create_standard_cost_code' or 'update_standard_cost_code_list'. The agent must infer usage from the endpoint path and parameters alone.

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