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 indicates a PATCH operation (partial update) and a role requirement, but does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this is a destructive mutation, what permissions are needed beyond the role hint, how conflicts are handled, or what the response format is. The description is insufficient for a mutation tool with no 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 brief but not front-loaded with essential information. It includes an endpoint path and role requirement, but wastes space on redundant details (e.g., 'PATCH' repeats the tool name). It could be more structured to highlight key usage aspects. However, it avoids excessive verbosity.

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 PATCH operation with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks information on what the tool returns, error conditions, side effects, or how partial updates work. The role requirement is noted, but overall completeness is poor for a mutation tool in this context.

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 all parameters documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the endpoint placeholders (company_id, id). It does not explain the purpose of fields like 'archetype' or 'type', leaving that to the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 'PATCH Company Role' restates the tool name with minimal context. It includes a role requirement '[Company Admin/Company Settings]' and an endpoint path, but does not specify what a 'Company Role' is or what fields can be updated. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on roles, but lacks a clear verb+resource definition beyond the name.

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 mentions a role requirement, but does not specify prerequisites, when to choose this over other role-related tools (e.g., 'create_company_role_v2_0' or 'delete_company_role_v2_0'), or any contextual constraints. Usage is implied only by the endpoint structure.

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