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 Sub Job' and includes 'PATCH', implying a mutation operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on partial updates, or error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks essential context 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 no wasted words, consisting of a brief statement and technical details (domain and HTTP method). It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it could be more structured by separating purpose from technical metadata for clarity.

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, no output schema, and nested objects in parameters, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain what a 'sub_job' is, the scope of updates, potential side effects, or return values. For a tool with three required parameters and significant domain context, this leaves critical gaps.

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 parameters 'id', 'project_id', and 'sub_job' documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but since the schema coverage is high, the baseline score is 3. The description does not compensate with additional details like format examples or constraints.

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 Sub Job. [Construction Financials/Work Breakdown Structure] PATCH /rest/v1.0/sub_jobs/{id}' restates the tool name ('Update Sub Job') with minimal additional context. It mentions the domain ('Construction Financials/Work Breakdown Structure') and HTTP method, but lacks a specific verb-resource combination that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'update_submittal' or 'update_task'. The purpose is vague beyond the basic update operation.

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. With many sibling update tools (e.g., 'update_submittal', 'update_task', 'update_project'), there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or distinctions. This leaves the agent without usage direction.

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