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' which implies a mutation, but fails to describe critical behaviors: whether it requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on partial updates, or the response format. The endpoint hint suggests a PATCH operation, but this is insufficient for understanding side effects or error conditions.

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 but under-specified. It consists of a tautological title followed by technical details (category and endpoint). While not verbose, it fails to convey essential information efficiently. The structure is front-loaded with the tool name but lacks meaningful content, making it less helpful despite its brevity.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain the update operation's impact, required permissions, or return values. For a tool that modifies assignee data in a project management context, more context is needed to ensure correct usage 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 clear parameter descriptions in the input schema (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project', 'Action Plan Item Assignee ID'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 Item Assignee' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It mentions the resource ('Action Plan Item Assignee') but lacks specificity about what fields are updated or the operation's scope. While it includes a category '[Project Management/Action Plans]' and endpoint 'PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/action_plans/plan_item_assignees/{id}', these are technical details that don't explain the tool's purpose in user-friendly terms.

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, related tools (e.g., sibling tools like 'create_action_plan_item_assignee' or 'bulk_update_action_plan_item_assignees'), or scenarios where this update is appropriate. Without such context, an AI agent cannot make informed decisions about tool selection.

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