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 mentions 'Reorder Company Role' and a POST endpoint, implying a mutation operation, but does not specify if this is destructive (e.g., overwrites existing order), requires specific permissions, or has side effects like affecting user access. The lack of detail leaves critical behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 purpose statement and a technical endpoint reference. While brief, it is not front-loaded with helpful information, and the technical details may clutter rather than clarify. It avoids verbosity but fails to prioritize actionable content for the agent.

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 with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'reorder' entails, the expected format of the 'order' array (e.g., role IDs in new sequence), and the outcome (e.g., success response or error handling). Without these, the agent cannot fully understand the tool's context or 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 'company_id' and 'order'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Since the schema adequately documents the parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 'Reorder Company Role' is a tautology that restates the tool name, providing no additional clarity. It does not specify what 'reorder' means (e.g., changing priority, sequence, or hierarchy) or what 'Company Role' refers to (e.g., user roles, permissions, or organizational positions). The inclusion of '[Company Admin/Company Settings] POST /rest/v2.0/companies/{company_id}/roles/reorder' adds technical context but does not clarify the functional purpose.

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., admin permissions), context (e.g., when role ordering is needed), or sibling tools (e.g., 'list_company_roles_v2_0' or 'patch_company_role_v2_0' from the sibling list). Without any usage instructions, the agent cannot determine appropriate invocation scenarios.

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