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 Unit of Measure' and includes an HTTP PATCH method, implying a mutation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response contains. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context.

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 and front-loaded with the action ('Update Unit of Measure'), followed by category and API details. It wastes no words, though it could be more informative. The structure is efficient, but brevity leads to underspecification.

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 tool's complexity (mutation with 4 required parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'update' involves, behavioral aspects, or return values. For a mutation tool, 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 all 4 parameters (company_id, id, name, uom_category_id). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema is comprehensive. Baseline score of 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 Unit of Measure. [Construction Financials/Units of Measure] PATCH /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/uoms/{id}' restates the tool name ('Update Unit of Measure') and adds technical details (API path and category), but does not specify what 'update' entails (e.g., modifying name, category). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_unit_of_measure' by implying an existing resource, but lacks clarity on the exact action.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'create_unit_of_measure' for new units, 'delete_unit_of_measure' for removal). The API path hints at updating an existing unit by ID, but no context on prerequisites (e.g., needing the unit ID) or constraints (e.g., permissions).

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