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. 'Update todo' implies a mutation, but it does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the update is partial or full, idempotency, or error handling. The endpoint hint 'PATCH' suggests partial updates, but this is not explicitly stated in the description.

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 extremely concise with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The single sentence 'Update todo' is front-loaded but lacks substance, making it more of a placeholder than a helpful description.

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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or any side effects. The minimal description does not compensate for the lack of structured data, leaving significant gaps for the 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 'todo'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema is well-documented, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 todo' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It adds no specificity about what 'update' entails or what resource is being modified. While it includes a category tag '[Project Management/Schedule (Legacy)]' and endpoint 'PATCH /rest/v1.0/todos/{id}', these do not clarify the tool's 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., 'create_todo' or 'delete_todo'). The agent receives no usage instructions.

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