Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'bulk update' which implies mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is destructive, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens on partial failures. The HTTP method (PATCH) is included but not explained in terms of behavior.

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 very concise - a single sentence followed by an endpoint path. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the inclusion of the full HTTP endpoint path adds technical detail that might be redundant with other metadata, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 bulk mutation tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'bulk' means operationally (batch size limits, atomicity), what the 'attributes' object should contain, or what the tool returns. The context signals show nested objects but the description provides no guidance on their structure.

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 all parameters documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. It mentions the endpoint path which implies 'project_id' is part of the URL, but this is already clear from the schema's required field. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 'Bulk update WBS codes' which clearly indicates the action (update) and resource (WBS codes). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_wbs_codes' or 'bulk_create_wbs_codes' that appear in the list. The description is specific about being a bulk operation but lacks distinction from other WBS-related tools.

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. There are many sibling tools for updating various resources (e.g., 'bulk_update_materials', 'bulk_update_timecard_entries'), but no indication of when this specific WBS code bulk update is appropriate versus individual updates or other bulk operations.

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