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 'PATCH /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/contributing_behaviors/bulk_update', indicating a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions required, side effects, rate limits, or response format. The description is minimal and lacks critical behavioral context for a bulk update tool.

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 concise with two sentences: one stating the tool name and category, and another providing the REST endpoint. It's front-loaded with the tool name and avoids unnecessary words. However, it could be more structured by explicitly separating purpose from technical details.

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 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on what 'Contributing Behaviors' are, the expected input format for 'ids', the effect of the 'active' flag, error handling, and response details. The description does not compensate for the absence of structured data, leaving significant gaps for an AI 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for parameters: 'company_id' (unique identifier), 'ids' (array of ids), and 'active' (flag for availability). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately documents parameters without extra help from the description.

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 Update') and resource ('Contributing Behaviors'), but it's vague about what 'Contributing Behaviors' are and lacks specificity. It includes a category tag '[Project Management/Incidents]' and a REST endpoint, which adds some context but doesn't fully clarify the purpose. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'bulk_update_contributing_conditions' or 'update_contributing_behavior'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Sibling tools include other bulk update operations (e.g., 'bulk_update_contributing_conditions'), but there's no differentiation. Usage is implied only by the name and category.

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