Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose that this is a mutation operation (PATCH), potential side effects (e.g., overwriting data), authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. The mention of '[Project Management/Observations]' is vague and doesn't clarify behavioral traits. This leaves critical safety and operational details unknown.

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 run-on sentence that mixes purpose with technical details (PATCH endpoint). It's not front-loaded with clear intent, and the inclusion of '[Project Management/Observations]' and the endpoint adds clutter without clarifying usage. While brief, it lacks effective structure to guide an agent.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'update' entails (e.g., which fields), the expected response format, or error conditions. For a mutation tool without structured safety hints, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how to invoke it correctly.

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 in the schema (e.g., 'company_id' as unique identifier). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying bulk updates via 'observation_template_ids'. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description doesn't compensate for any gaps.

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 Company Observation Templates' restates the tool name without adding specificity. It mentions the resource ('Company Observation Templates') and verb ('Bulk Update'), but lacks details on what fields are updated or the scope of 'bulk' (e.g., multiple templates at once). It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'bulk_update_project_observation_templates', leaving ambiguity about company vs. project context.

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., needing company_id), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., 'update_observation_item' for single updates). Without this, an agent must infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient.

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