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 'PATCH' which implies mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's idempotent, what permissions are required, if it's destructive (updates multiple records), error handling, or rate limits. The description is minimal and fails to provide necessary context for a bulk mutation operation.

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 that repeats the tool name and includes an API endpoint path, which adds no value for an AI agent. It's under-specified rather than concise—front-loading with the endpoint doesn't help with tool selection. Every sentence should earn its place, and this one doesn't.

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 with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'work activities' are in the context, what the update does beyond the 'active' flag, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, more context is needed.

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 in the schema (company_id, ids, active). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is high, baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 'Bulk Update Work Activities' which indicates the verb (update) and resource (work activities) with a bulk operation scope. However, it's vague about what specific fields are updated (only 'active' flag is hinted in schema) and doesn't distinguish from other bulk update tools in the sibling list (e.g., bulk_update_action_plan_item, bulk_update_materials).

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 (e.g., needing work activity IDs), appropriate scenarios, or comparisons to single update tools. With many sibling tools, this omission is significant.

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