Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It implies a mutation ('Update') but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether updates are partial or complete, idempotency, error handling for invalid arrays, or rate limits. This leaves critical behavioral aspects unclear.

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 sentence but includes redundant information (the tool name is repeated) and low-value details like the API endpoint ('PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/materials/bulk_update'), which does not aid the agent. It is under-specified rather than concise, failing to front-load useful context.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on what constitutes a successful update, error responses, or the impact on existing data. Given the complexity of bulk operations, more context is needed to understand the tool's behavior and outcomes.

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. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the structure of 'Material objects' in the array or update semantics. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 Materials') and resource ('Materials'), which is clear. However, it does not specify what 'update' entails (e.g., modifying fields like quantity, status) or differentiate from sibling tools like 'bulk_create_materials' or 'bulk_delete_materials', 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., existing materials), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'update_material' (single) or 'bulk_create_materials', making it unhelpful for decision-making.

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