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. The description states 'Update Timeline Event' which implies a mutation, but it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the update is partial or full, what happens to unspecified fields, or any side effects. The API path suggests a PATCH operation, but this is not explained. The description adds minimal context beyond the name.

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. It consists of a tautological phrase followed by a category tag and API path. While it avoids unnecessary verbosity, it fails to provide essential information that would help an AI agent, such as the tool's purpose beyond the name. The structure is front-loaded but lacks substance, making it minimally adequate but not helpful.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral nuances. The API path hints at a REST endpoint, but without annotations or output schema, the description should compensate by providing more context, which it fails to do. 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%, so the input schema already documents all 9 parameters with clear descriptions. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it does not explain relationships between parameters (e.g., that timeline_event_type influences date requirements) or provide usage examples. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate given 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 Timeline Event' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'update_timeline_event_v2_0' without adding specificity. It lacks a clear verb+resource distinction and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_timeline_event_v2_0' or 'delete_timeline_event_v2_0'. The inclusion of '[Project Management/Scheduling]' and the API path provides some context but does not clarify what the tool actually does beyond the obvious.

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., existing timeline events), differentiate from create or delete operations, or specify any contextual constraints. With sibling tools like 'create_timeline_event_v2_0' and 'delete_timeline_event_v2_0' present, the absence of usage guidelines is a significant gap.

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