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 'Update a Crew', implying a mutation operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether updates are partial or full, idempotency, error conditions, or side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise—'Update a Crew. [Core/Directory] PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/crews/{id}'—with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action. However, the inclusion of API path details may be unnecessary clutter for an AI agent, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral aspects (e.g., update semantics, error handling), usage context, and output expectations. The high schema coverage does not compensate for these gaps in operational guidance.

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 parameters (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project', 'Id of the Crew'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between fields (e.g., 'party_ids' vs. 'lead_party_id'). Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Update a Crew' clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('a Crew'), providing a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what aspects of a crew can be updated (e.g., name, members, equipment) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_a_new_crew' or 'delete_a_crew' beyond the action verb. This makes it adequate but vague.

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., needing an existing crew ID), exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'create_a_new_crew' or 'delete_a_crew'. Without such context, an agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and schema.

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