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. The description mentions it is an update operation (implied by 'Update' and the PATCH method), but it does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the update is destructive or reversible, rate limits, or what happens if the 'active' parameter is changed. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose ('Update Action Plan Verification Method'). The additional context (category and API endpoint) is relevant but could be more structured. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, but the inclusion of the API endpoint might be considered extraneous for an agent's decision-making. Overall, it is efficient with minimal waste.

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 as an update operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral aspects (e.g., permissions, side effects), usage guidelines, and expected outcomes. The description does not compensate for the absence of structured data, making it inadequate for an agent to fully understand how to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear descriptions for 'company_id', 'id', and 'active'. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it does not explain the semantics of 'active' like toggling usability). Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score is 3, as the schema adequately documents parameters without extra help from 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 states the tool's purpose as 'Update Action Plan Verification Method' and includes the category '[Project Management/Action Plans]' and the API endpoint 'PATCH /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/action_plans/verification_methods/{id}'. This provides a clear verb ('Update') and resource ('Action Plan Verification Method'), but it does not distinguish this tool from its sibling 'update_action_plan_verification_method' (which appears to be the same tool) or other update tools in the list, such as 'update_action_plan_item' or 'update_action_plan_section'. The description is specific but lacks sibling differentiation.

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, such as needing an existing verification method ID, or specify scenarios where this tool is appropriate compared to other action plan update tools (e.g., 'update_action_plan_item'). There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information, leaving the agent without usage context.

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