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 Job Title' and includes an HTTP method (POST) and endpoint, which implies a mutation operation, but does not describe side effects (e.g., whether changes are reversible), authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. 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 brief and front-loaded with the core action ('Update a Job Title'), followed by additional context (category and endpoint). It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though the endpoint details might be more technical than needed for an AI agent. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, side effects), usage guidelines, and expected outputs, making it insufficient for safe and effective tool invocation by an AI agent.

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 detailed descriptions for all 7 parameters (e.g., company_id formats, hourly_rate conditions). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, but the schema itself is comprehensive, meeting the baseline score of 3 for high 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 ('Update') and resource ('a Job Title'), making the purpose understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_a_job_title' or 'delete_a_job_title', but the verb 'Update' implies modification of an existing resource, which is distinct from creation or deletion.

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 job title ID), compare with sibling tools (e.g., 'create_a_job_title'), or specify contexts like error handling or permissions. Usage is implied only by the action 'Update'.

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