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 task', implying a mutation operation, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: required permissions, whether the update is partial or full (PATCH suggests partial), if it's idempotent, what happens on validation errors, or the response format. The endpoint hint is insufficient for behavioral understanding.

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 but under-specified. 'Update task' is too brief, while the bracketed category and endpoint add technical clutter without improving clarity. It's front-loaded with the core action but lacks essential details, making it inefficient despite its brevity.

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 inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'task' object properties are updatable, the expected response, error conditions, or authentication requirements. For a tool that modifies data, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 descriptions for 'id', 'project_id', and 'task'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. However, since the schema is well-documented, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't detract but also doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 task' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It lacks specificity about what resource is being updated (a task) and what fields or aspects can be modified. While it includes a category '[Project Management/Schedule (Legacy)]' and endpoint 'PATCH /rest/v1.0/tasks/{id}', these are technical details that don't clarify the functional purpose for an AI agent.

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 task ID), nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_task' or 'update_task_item'. Without any usage context, an agent cannot make informed decisions.

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