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 implies a mutation ('Move'), suggesting it's not read-only, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's reversible, side effects, or rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks crucial operational context for a mutation tool.

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 states the core action. It's front-loaded with the key verb and resource, though it includes an API endpoint detail that may be redundant. Overall, it's concise with minimal waste.

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 (a state mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return value, error conditions, or behavioral implications. For a tool that changes an Action Plan's state, more context is needed to understand its full impact and usage.

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 both parameters (project_id and id) clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying these IDs target a specific Action Plan. 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 clearly states the action ('Move Action Plan back into "Draft"') and the resource ('Action Plan'), specifying the target state. It distinguishes from siblings by indicating a state transition to 'Draft', unlike other tools like 'move_action_plan_into_in_progress'. However, it doesn't explicitly mention it's a state change operation, which slightly limits specificity.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the Action Plan must be in a non-Draft state), exclusions, or compare with sibling tools like 'move_action_plan_into_in_progress'. The description lacks context for proper tool selection.

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