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 of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Reactivate project vendor' which implies a mutation (changing vendor status from inactive to active), but does not disclose required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on success/failure, or any side effects. The HTTP method (PATCH) hints at partial update, but this is not explained. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 sentence with the core action and API endpoint, which is efficient. However, it includes technical details like '[Core/Directory]' and the HTTP path that may not be necessary for an AI agent. The structure is front-loaded with the purpose, but could be more polished by omitting redundant API details.

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 (reactivation), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'reactivate' entails (e.g., restoring vendor access, updating status), expected outcomes, error conditions, or permissions required. The API endpoint hint is insufficient for contextual understanding, leaving significant gaps for safe and correct 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 clear descriptions for project_id, id, and view parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. It mentions the API endpoint path which includes {project_id} and {id}, but this is redundant with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 ('Reactivate') and resource ('project vendor'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'reactivate_company_vendor' or 'reactivate_project_user', which have similar naming patterns but target different resources. The description is specific but lacks sibling distinction.

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 (e.g., vendor must be inactive), exclusions, or related tools like 'deactivate' or 'create_project_vendor'. Usage is implied by the name alone, with no explicit context or alternatives provided.

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