Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Modify Markups' with an HTTP PUT method, implying a mutation operation but lacking details on permissions, side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites or updates existing markups), error conditions, or response format. This is insufficient 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 concise but under-specified, consisting of a single sentence fragment. It front-loads the tool name but wastes space on an HTTP path that adds little value for an AI agent. While not verbose, it lacks substantive content, making it inefficient in conveying necessary 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 mutation tool with 4 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'modify' entails (e.g., partial vs. full updates), the expected 'markups' array format, or the result of the operation. This leaves significant gaps for the agent to operate effectively.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter documented (e.g., 'company_id', 'markups'). The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the structure of 'markups' array items or relationships between IDs. However, with high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden.

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 'Modify Markups. [Project Management/Document Markup] PUT /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/projects/{project_id}/viewer_documents/{viewer_doc_id}/markups' restates the tool name ('Modify Markups') and adds an HTTP method and path, but it lacks a clear, specific explanation of what the tool actually does. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'add_a_new_markup' or 'remove_an_existing_markup', leaving the purpose vague beyond basic CRUD inference.

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, context, or exclusions, and fails to differentiate from sibling tools such as 'add_a_new_markup' or 'remove_an_existing_markup'. This absence of usage instructions leaves the agent without direction.

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