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 implies a mutation ('Update') and includes an HTTP method (PATCH), but does not specify required permissions, whether the update is partial or full, side effects (e.g., triggering validations), or error conditions. The mention of 'PATCH' hints at partial updates, but this is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 (one line) but under-specified. It wastes no words, yet fails to convey essential details like the tool's purpose beyond the name. While structured with domain and HTTP method, it lacks front-loaded clarity, making it minimally adequate but not helpful.

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 (12 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what an 'Action' entails, the update behavior, or the response format. For a mutation tool with rich parameters, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to operate effectively.

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 parameter descriptions in the input schema (e.g., 'project_id' as 'Unique identifier for the project'). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema. According to scoring rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description.

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 Action. [Project Management/Incidents] PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/incidents/actions/{id}' restates the tool name ('Update Action') and adds minimal context about the domain (Project Management/Incidents) and HTTP method. It does not specify what an 'Action' is in this context or what fields can be updated, making it vague and lacking differentiation from sibling tools like 'update_incident' or 'update_action_plan_item'.

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 action ID), constraints, or related tools (e.g., 'create_action' or 'destroy_action'). Without any usage context, an agent cannot determine appropriate invocation scenarios.

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