Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Update task item' implying a mutation, but lacks critical behavioral details: required permissions, whether it's idempotent, side effects, error handling, or response format. The PATCH method hint is minimal and insufficient for a mutation tool with 20 parameters.

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 (one sentence plus endpoint), but under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It wastes space on redundant technical details ([Core/Tasks] PATCH /rest/v1.0/task_items/{id}) that don't aid the agent, failing to front-load useful guidance.

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?

For a mutation tool with 20 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what a task item is, what happens on update, error conditions, or required permissions. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool safely and effectively.

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 all 20 parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, not even mentioning key required fields like 'id' and 'project_id'. Baseline 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 'Update task item. [Core/Tasks] PATCH /rest/v1.0/task_items/{id}' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'update_task_item' and adds only technical endpoint details. It does not specify what a 'task item' is or what fields can be updated, failing to provide meaningful purpose beyond the name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools list includes many other update tools (e.g., update_task, update_punch_item), but the description offers no differentiation or context for selection.

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