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 work order contract' which implies a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, side effects, or error handling. The API endpoint hint suggests a PATCH operation, but this isn't explained. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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 with two parts: the action and the API endpoint. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the endpoint detail might be redundant for an AI agent if the tool is well-integrated, and it could be more structured with usage hints. It avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 (5 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the update behavior, what fields can be modified in 'work_order_contract', how attachments are handled, or the response format. For a mutation tool with significant parameters, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 the 5 parameters (id, run_configurable_validations, project_id, attachments, work_order_contract). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It implies an 'id' parameter via the endpoint path, but this is already covered. 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 states the action ('Update') and resource ('work order contract'), which is clear but basic. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'update_work_order_contract_detail_line_item' or 'update_work_order_contract_line_item', leaving ambiguity about scope. The inclusion of '[Construction Financials/Commitments]' adds some context, but the purpose remains vague regarding what specifically is updated.

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 description mentions the API endpoint ('PATCH /rest/v1.0/work_order_contracts/{id}'), which implies it's for partial updates, but it doesn't explicitly state this or compare to other update tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases.

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