Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Bulk Update Harm Sources' with an API path, failing to describe whether this is a mutation (implied by 'Update'), what permissions are required, if it's idempotent, rate limits, or side effects. The description lacks critical behavioral information needed for safe invocation.

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 line combining the tool name, category, and API path, which is concise but under-specified. It front-loads the tool name but wastes space on the API path without adding explanatory value. While not verbose, it lacks essential details, making it inefficient in conveying necessary 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 no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool with three parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'Harm Sources' are, what 'bulk update' does, expected outcomes, or error conditions. For a tool that likely modifies data, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and impact.

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 'company_id' and 'active', though 'ids' is minimally described as 'ids'. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as explaining the format of 'ids' or the effect of 'active'. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but no extra value is provided.

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 Harm Sources. [Project Management/Incidents] PATCH /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/incidents/harm_sources/bulk_update' restates the tool name ('Bulk Update Harm Sources') and adds a category and API path, but does not specify what 'update' entails (e.g., which fields can be modified) or what 'Harm Sources' are. It distinguishes from siblings by implying bulk operations, but the purpose remains vague beyond the name.

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 does not mention prerequisites, constraints, or sibling tools (e.g., individual update tools like 'update_harm_source' or other bulk operations). Without any usage context, an agent cannot determine appropriate scenarios for invocation.

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