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 mentions 'PUT' (implying a mutation) and a permission hint, but does not disclose critical behavioral traits like whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on conflicts, rate limits, or response format. 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 a single, efficient sentence that includes the action, resource, permission hint, and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though the endpoint detail might be redundant if the agent already has structured API data. No wasted words, but could be more polished.

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 is a mutation (implied by 'PUT') with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'UI flags' are, the payload structure for create/update, error handling, or return values. For a bulk operation with potential complexity, this leaves significant gaps for an 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for its single parameter ('company_id'), so the schema already documents it fully. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, but with high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as no extra value is needed.

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 ('Bulk create/update UI flags') and the resource ('UI flags'), which clarifies the purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., other bulk operations like 'bulk_create' or 'bulk_update') or specify what 'UI flags' entail, making it somewhat vague but adequate.

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?

The description includes a permission hint ('[Company Admin/Company Settings]') and an HTTP method ('PUT'), which implies context but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or sibling tool comparisons is provided, leaving usage unclear.

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