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' and 'bulk update', implying a mutation operation, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits like required permissions, whether updates are atomic or partial, error handling, or rate limits. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero 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 a single, efficient sentence that includes the tool name, category, and HTTP method. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, though it could be more structured by separating functional details from technical endpoint 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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks information on what the update does (e.g., which fields are modifiable beyond the schema), success/error responses, and operational constraints, leaving significant gaps for the 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%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between fields or update constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 tool performs a 'Bulk Update' on 'Project Observation Templates', which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from similar sibling tools like 'bulk_update_company_observation_templates' or other bulk update operations, leaving ambiguity about its specific scope.

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 lacks context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or comparisons with non-bulk or company-level observation template updates, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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