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 'Bulk Update' and includes a PATCH method hint, implying mutation, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on partial failures (hinted by 'completion_mode' but not explained), or the expected response format. The description adds minimal value beyond the name.

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 front-loads the core action ('Bulk Update Action Plan Item Assignees') and includes the API path for context. There is no wasted verbiage, though it could be more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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 inadequate. It does not explain the mutation's impact, error handling, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it correctly. The schema covers parameters, but the overall tool behavior is underspecified.

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 parameter descriptions (e.g., 'project_id' as a unique identifier, 'completion_mode' with enum values). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the structure of 'plan_item_assignees' array items or the implications of 'all_or_nothing' vs 'atomic'. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 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 tool performs a 'Bulk Update' on 'Action Plan Item Assignees', which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'bulk_update_action_plan_item' or 'bulk_create_action_plan_item_assignees', leaving the scope ambiguous (e.g., what exactly is being updated about assignees).

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. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as when bulk updates are appropriate compared to individual updates, or how it relates to similar bulk operations in the sibling list (e.g., 'bulk_create_action_plan_item_assignees').

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