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. It states 'update' implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a bulk operation, if it overwrites or merges data, permission requirements, side effects, or error handling. The API path hints at PATCH semantics, but the description doesn't explain what 'update_all' entails beyond the name.

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 a single run-on sentence mixing tool name, bracketed context, and API path without clear structure. It's not front-loaded with actionable information—the key detail ('update all company segment items') is buried. While concise in length, it's inefficiently structured, forcing the agent to parse technical details without clear guidance.

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 (bulk update tool with 4 required parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the scope ('all' vs. filtered), the effect of the 'attributes' object, or what the tool returns. For a mutation tool with significant impact, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 (e.g., 'company_id' as unique identifier, 'ids' as list of segment item IDs). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description doesn't compensate or add value.

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 restates the tool name ('Update All Company Segment Items') without adding specificity. It mentions the resource (company segment items) but lacks a clear verb beyond 'update' and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'update_company_segment_item' or 'update_all_project_segment_items'. The bracketed context '[Construction Financials/Work Breakdown Structure]' and API path are technical details but don't clarify the purpose.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or compare with sibling tools (e.g., 'update_company_segment_item' for single updates or 'update_all_project_segment_items' for project-level). Without any usage context, an agent cannot make an informed selection.

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