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 states 'Update' implying a mutation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether updates are partial or full, side effects, or error handling. The HTTP method (POST) is mentioned but without context on idempotency or response format.

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 but under-specified—it's a single sentence fragment that repeats the name and adds an HTTP endpoint without value. It's front-loaded but lacks substance, failing to earn its place with meaningful information.

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 (14 parameters, mutation tool, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It does not explain what 'updating' entails, the scope of changes, or expected outcomes. For a tool with significant input parameters and mutation behavior, more context is needed.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 14 parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, not even mentioning key fields like name, timezone, or address. Baseline 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 'Update a Single Group' restates the tool name without adding specificity. It mentions the resource ('Group') and action ('Update'), but lacks details on what aspects can be updated or how it differs from other update tools. It's vague compared to the detailed input schema.

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. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or sibling tools (e.g., 'create_a_new_group' or 'delete_a_single_group'). This leaves the agent without usage direction.

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