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 for behavioral disclosure. The description mentions 'PATCH' which implies partial updates, but doesn't clarify permissions required, whether this is idempotent, what happens to unspecified fields, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with 12 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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 with just two parts: the tautological purpose statement and the API endpoint. While under-specified, it's not verbose or poorly structured. The API endpoint information (PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/action_plans/plans/{id}) is actually useful context that's efficiently presented.

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?

For a complex mutation tool with 12 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain what an 'action plan' is in this context, what fields are updatable, what permissions are required, or what the tool returns. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without significant additional context.

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 already documents all 12 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide examples of valid values, or clarify how parameters like 'plan_approvers_attributes' should be structured. 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 'Update Action Plan' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It provides no additional clarity about what the tool actually does beyond the obvious 'update' operation. The bracketed '[Project Management/Action Plans]' adds some context but doesn't specify what aspects of an action plan can be updated or how this differs from other update tools.

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 absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools including other update operations and action plan-related tools, there's no indication of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or differentiation from similar tools like 'update_action_plan_item' or 'bulk_update_action_plan_item'.

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