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 states the action is a conversion but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a destructive operation (changing layer visibility), permission requirements, side effects, or rate limits. This leaves critical behavioral information unspecified.

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 a single sentence stating the purpose, followed by a category and API path. The API path is extraneous for an AI agent but does not significantly detract from clarity. It is front-loaded with the core action, making it efficient.

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 mutation tool (converting layer visibility) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the outcome (e.g., what 'public' means, any changes in access), error conditions, or response format, leaving gaps for the agent to infer behavior.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters (company_id, project_id, layer_id) documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about these parameters, such as format or relationships, so it meets the baseline of 3 where 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 clearly states the action ('Convert') and resource ('private layer to public'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., 'create_a_new_layer' or 'update_layer'), which could involve similar resources but different operations, so it misses full distinction.

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 lacks context such as prerequisites (e.g., needing a private layer), exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'update_layer' or 'create_a_new_layer', 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.