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 mentions 'Update a classification' which implies a mutation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions (only hinted by '[Company Admin/Company Settings]'), whether changes are reversible, side effects, or error conditions. The API path adds technical detail but not behavioral context like rate limits or idempotency.

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 functional statement and a technical API path. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, the API path detail, while informative, could be considered extraneous for an AI agent's tool selection, slightly reducing efficiency. Overall, it is well-structured with minimal waste.

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 tool's complexity (mutation with 5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on permissions, side effects, error handling, and what the update operation returns. The API path provides some context but does not compensate for missing behavioral and output details, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.

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 all 5 parameters (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project.' for project_id). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 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 states the action ('Update a classification') and resource ('classification'), which is clear but basic. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_all_classification' or 'update_classification', leaving ambiguity about scope. The inclusion of API path '[Company Admin/Company Settings] PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/work_classifications/{id}' adds technical context but doesn't enhance 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_all_classification' or 'update_classification'. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., required permissions hinted by '[Company Admin/Company Settings]'), exclusions, or typical scenarios. It assumes the user knows when this specific update operation is appropriate.

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