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 links,' which implies a write operation but lacks details on permissions required, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, error handling, or what 'bulk' entails (e.g., batch size limits). The API endpoint hints at a PATCH method, suggesting partial updates, but this is not explicitly explained. The description is insufficient for a mutation tool with no annotation coverage.

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 parts: a brief phrase and an API endpoint. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The API endpoint adds technical detail but does not enhance user understanding. While not verbose, it fails to convey necessary information, making it less effective despite its 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, no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, the tool definition is incomplete. The description does not cover what 'links' are, the update payload, expected outcomes, or error scenarios. For a mutation tool with significant behavioral implications, this lack of context makes it inadequate for safe and correct usage.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for company_id and project_id as unique identifiers. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. However, the description does not explain what 'links' are or what data is needed for the bulk update, leaving a gap in understanding the full request payload.

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 links' restates the tool name 'bulk_update_links_v2_0' without adding specificity. It does not clarify what 'links' refer to (e.g., hyperlinks, project links, associations) or what 'bulk update' entails (e.g., modifying multiple links at once). The inclusion of the API endpoint '[Core/Project] PATCH /rest/v2.0/companies/{company_id}/projects/{project_id}/links/bulk_update' provides technical context but does not translate to a clear user-facing purpose, making it vague and minimally informative.

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 company and project IDs), scenarios for bulk updates, or sibling tools that might handle individual link updates or other link-related operations. Without any usage context, an agent cannot determine appropriate invocation conditions.

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