Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states 'Bulk Update' and implies a PATCH operation, suggesting mutation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether updates are atomic or partial, error handling for invalid items, or rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational details.

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 line with no redundant information. It includes the tool name, category, and HTTP method, which is concise. However, it could be more front-loaded with actionable intent rather than just restating the name.

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 of a bulk update operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to structure the 'plan_items' array, or any side effects. For a mutation tool with multiple parameters, more context is needed to ensure correct usage.

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 'project_id' and 'plan_items'. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema (e.g., format of plan_items array, update payload structure). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately documents parameters.

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 Update Action Plan Item. [Project Management/Action Plans] PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/action_plans/plan_items/bulk_update' restates the tool name and adds a category label and HTTP endpoint, but does not specify what 'update' entails (e.g., which fields can be modified, what 'bulk' means operationally). It distinguishes from non-bulk siblings but lacks a clear verb+resource+scope definition.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., single update tools, other bulk operations). It does not mention prerequisites, constraints, or typical scenarios for bulk updates, leaving the agent with no usage context.

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