Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Update a WBS code' which implies a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the update is idempotent, if it overwrites or merges fields, or what happens on validation errors. The mention of 'PATCH' in the description hints at partial updates, but this is not elaborated.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose ('Update a WBS code') and includes context in brackets and the API endpoint. It's efficient with no wasted sentences, though the API endpoint detail might be more relevant to developers than AI agents. Structure is clear but could be more focused on agent needs.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., updated WBS code object, success status), error conditions, or side effects. For a 4-parameter update tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps for 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%, so the schema fully documents parameters (project_id, id, description, status). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining that 'description' is a custom field or that 'status' toggles active/inactive. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 'Update a WBS code' which is a clear verb+resource, but it's vague about what fields can be updated. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'bulk_update_wbs_codes' or 'create_a_wbs_code', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific single-update tool versus bulk operations.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing project_id and id), nor does it contrast with sibling tools like 'bulk_update_wbs_codes' for multiple updates or 'create_a_wbs_code' for creation. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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