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' implying a mutation, but fails to describe permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, side effects, or response format. For a PATCH operation with no annotations, this is inadequate.

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 but under-specified. While it avoids waste, it lacks essential information. The inclusion of the API path '[Project Management/Action Plans] PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/action_plans/plan_sections/{id}' adds some context but doesn't compensate for the brevity in functional explanation.

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 updating an action plan section, the absence of annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description, this is incomplete. The description fails to explain what an 'Action Plan Section' is, what fields can be updated, or the implications of the update operation.

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 4 parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 Section' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It lacks a specific verb and resource details, and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_action_plan_item' or 'update_action_plan'. It provides minimal clarity beyond the name itself.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage instructions. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool in a complex system.

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