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 implies a mutation ('Update') but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires admin permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on partial failures, or rate limits. The API path suggests a PATCH operation, but the description adds no context beyond that, which is insufficient for a mutation 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 a single, efficient sentence that includes the tool name, category, and API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, though it could be more structured by separating functional details from technical path information.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks information on permissions, error handling, response format, and how it differs from non-bulk operations. The agent cannot reliably invoke this tool without guessing at critical behavioral aspects.

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: 'company_id' as a unique identifier, 'ids' as an array (though vague), and 'active' as a boolean flag. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the format of 'ids' or what 'active' toggles. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 action ('Bulk Update') and resource ('Contributing Conditions'), and includes a category hint ('Project Management/Incidents') and API path. However, it does not specify what 'update' entails (e.g., which fields can be modified) or differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_contributing_condition' (singular) or 'bulk_update_contributing_behaviors', leaving the purpose somewhat vague.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing specific permissions), when bulk updates are appropriate, or refer to sibling tools like 'update_contributing_condition' for single 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.