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 fails to indicate whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are required, or any side effects (e.g., if moving a catalog affects child items). The mention of 'POST' implies a write, but without explicit safety or mutation details, the agent lacks critical behavioral understanding.

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 run-on sentence that mixes a tautological phrase ('Move Catalog') with a bracketed note and a URL path. It is not front-loaded with useful information and includes redundant details (the URL) that do not aid the agent in tool selection or invocation, making it inefficient and poorly structured.

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 (implied by 'POST') with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or the impact of moving a catalog (e.g., hierarchy changes). For a tool that likely modifies data, this lack of context leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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 (e.g., 'Catalog Id', 'Parent Catalog Id'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately documents parameters without extra help from the description.

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 Catalog. [Preconstruction/Cost Catalog] POST /rest/v2.0/companies/{company_id}/estimating/catalogs/{catalog_id}/move/{parent_catalog_id}' restates the tool name ('Move Catalog') and includes a URL path, but it lacks a clear, specific verb+resource explanation. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools (e.g., 'create_catalog_v2_0', 'delete_catalog_v2_0', 'update_catalog_v2_0'), leaving the agent uncertain about its unique function beyond basic movement.

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, constraints, or sibling tools (like 'update_catalog_v2_0' for modifications), leaving the agent with no context for appropriate invocation.

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