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. It mentions 'PATCH /rest/v1.0/schedule_integration' which hints at an HTTP method but doesn't explain whether this is a mutating operation, what permissions are required, or what happens on success/failure. The description is insufficient for a tool that likely modifies data.

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 brief but includes extraneous information like '[Project Management/Schedule (Legacy)]' and the HTTP endpoint, which doesn't help the agent. It's not efficiently structured, though it avoids being verbose.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a description that lacks behavioral details, this is incomplete. The agent cannot infer the tool's effects, return values, or error conditions, making it inadequate for safe invocation.

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 both parameters ('project_id' and 'file') well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information, but the schema adequately covers semantics, meeting the baseline score of 3.

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 'Upload schedule file' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'upload_schedule_file_v1_0_2' without adding meaningful context. It lacks a specific verb-resource combination and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'upload_schedule_file_v1_0' or 'download_schedule_file'.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage instructions.

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