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. 'Bulk activation' implies a write operation that changes state, but it doesn't disclose what activation entails (e.g., enabling user accounts, setting statuses), whether it's idempotent, what permissions are required, or what happens on success/failure. The API path hints at a POST to a people endpoint, but this isn't explained.

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 ('Bulk activation.'), which could be efficient, but it's under-specified rather than truly concise. The API path appended adds length without being integrated meaningfully. It's front-loaded but lacks substance.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool (implied by 'activation'), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the operation's effect, return values, error conditions, or prerequisites. For a bulk operation that likely affects multiple records, more context is needed to use it safely and effectively.

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 both parameters ('company_id' and 'ids'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since the schema fully documents them, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as it doesn't detract value.

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 'Bulk activation' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It doesn't specify what is being activated (people, as indicated by the path) or what 'activation' means in this context. The API path provides some context but isn't part of the description proper.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools include 'bulk_deactivation_v2_0' and many other bulk operations, but the description doesn't differentiate when to activate versus deactivate or when bulk activation is appropriate versus individual activation.

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