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 mentions a POST endpoint, implying a mutation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether the move is reversible, side effects on related data, or error conditions. The description adds minimal context beyond the endpoint, leaving critical behavioral aspects 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 two parts: a tautological statement and an endpoint reference. It is front-loaded but under-specified, as the first part adds little value. The endpoint detail is useful for context but could be more informative. It avoids waste but lacks substance.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool. It does not explain the outcome of the move operation, potential errors, or system behavior. The schema covers inputs, but the description fails to provide necessary context for safe and correct usage, especially for a destructive operation.

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 (e.g., 'ID of the Action Plan Section that will follow the newly moved Section'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema adequately covers the parameters. 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 'Move Action Plan Section' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It specifies the resource (Action Plan Section) and verb (Move) but lacks detail on what moving entails (e.g., reordering within a plan). It does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'move_action_plan_item_within_or_across_sections', leaving ambiguity about scope.

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 includes a category '[Project Management/Action Plans]' and a POST endpoint, but these do not offer usage context, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., moving items vs. sections). The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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