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. 'Reactivate' implies a state change (likely from inactive to active), but the description doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what data is returned, or side effects (e.g., reactivating associated records). It mentions the API endpoint '[Core/Directory] PATCH /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/vendors/inactive/{id}', which hints at a PATCH operation but doesn't explain its implications.

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 brief purpose statement and the API endpoint. It's front-loaded with the core action. However, the endpoint detail, while informative, could be considered extraneous for an AI agent if structured fields exist, but it doesn't waste space.

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, no output schema, and a mutation tool (reactivate), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like success/failure responses, error conditions, or system state changes. The endpoint hint adds some context but doesn't compensate for the lack of transparency in a tool that modifies data.

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 descriptions for 'company_id' and 'id', and an enum for 'view'. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema. The endpoint path implies 'company_id' and 'id' are used in the URL, and 'view' might affect the response, but this isn't stated. 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 'Reactivate company vendor' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It specifies the resource ('company vendor') and action ('reactivate'), but lacks specificity about what reactivation entails and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'reactivate_company_user' or 'reactivate_project_vendor'. It's a tautology with slight expansion.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., vendor must be inactive), context (e.g., after deactivation), or sibling tools (e.g., 'create_company_vendor', 'deactivate_company_vendor'). Usage is entirely implied from the name.

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