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 the action is an 'Add' operation (implying a mutation/write) but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on duplicate segments, or error conditions. The API path hint ('PUT') suggests a write, but no further context is given about side effects or safety.

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 core action. The API path in brackets is extraneous for an agent's understanding but doesn't severely hinder readability. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though it could be more structured by separating conceptual from technical details.

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 (a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is inadequate. It lacks context about the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) domain, what 'patterns' and 'segments' are, expected outcomes, or error handling. Without annotations or output schema, the agent has insufficient information to use this tool effectively beyond basic parameter passing.

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 clearly documented in the schema ('project_id' as a unique identifier, 'segment_id' as a Segment ID). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as explaining what a 'segment_id' represents or where to obtain it. However, with full schema coverage, the 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 states the action ('Add segment') and target ('to the project pattern'), which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it's vague about what a 'segment' or 'project pattern' means in this context, and it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'remove_segment_from_the_project_pattern' or other WBS-related tools. The inclusion of the API path adds technical detail but doesn't enhance semantic clarity.

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 (e.g., existing project patterns or segments), use cases, or exclusions. While sibling tools like 'remove_segment_from_the_project_pattern' exist, there's no explicit comparison or context to help an agent choose between them.

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