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 All Project Segment Items' and includes a PATCH method in the API path, implying a mutation operation. However, it fails to describe critical behaviors: what 'update_all' entails (e.g., batch updates, overwrites, merges), permissions required, side effects, error handling, or rate limits. The description is insufficient for a mutation tool with no annotation coverage.

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 restated tool name and an API path, which is front-loaded but lacks explanatory content. While not verbose, it fails to provide necessary context, making it inefficient in conveying tool purpose and usage.

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 (batch update with nested objects), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the update behavior, expected inputs beyond the schema, or what the tool returns. For a mutation tool with significant parameters, this leaves critical gaps for an 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 descriptions for 'project_id' and 'segment_id', but vague ones for 'ids' ('List of segment item IDs. The API will find and update the children of the provided IDs.') and 'attributes' ('attributes'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the 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 All Project Segment Items' restates the tool name with minimal additional context. It mentions the API path '[Construction Financials/Work Breakdown Structure] PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/work_breakdown_structure/segments/{segment_id}/segment_items/update_all', which provides some resource context but lacks a specific verb or clear differentiation from sibling tools like 'update_project_segment_item' (implied) or bulk update tools. The purpose is vague beyond being an update operation.

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, constraints, or sibling tools (e.g., 'update_project_segment_item' for single updates or 'bulk_update_project_segment_items' if applicable). 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.