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. It states 'Update Catalog' and includes a PATCH method, implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on partial updates, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate, scoring 2.

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, efficient sentence: 'Update Catalog. [Preconstruction/Cost Catalog] PATCH /rest/v2.0/companies/{company_id}/estimating/catalogs/{catalog_id}'. It's front-loaded with the action and includes relevant context. However, it could be more structured by separating purpose from technical details, but it's concise with zero waste, scoring 4.

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 (mutation with 3 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on what 'Update Catalog' entails, expected outcomes, error handling, or prerequisites. For a mutation tool in a context-rich environment like Procore, this is insufficient, scoring 2.

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 parameters 'catalog_id', 'company_id', and 'name' all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as explaining what 'name' represents or constraints. Given high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 Catalog. [Preconstruction/Cost Catalog] PATCH /rest/v2.0/companies/{company_id}/estimating/catalogs/{catalog_id}' restates the tool name ('Update Catalog') and includes a technical endpoint, but lacks a specific verb-resource combination. It mentions 'Preconstruction/Cost Catalog' as context but doesn't clearly state what the tool does (e.g., modify catalog properties). This is vague and borders on tautology, scoring 2.

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. With sibling tools like 'create_catalog_v2_0', 'delete_catalog_v2_0', 'move_catalog_v2_0', and 'get_catalogs_v2_0', there's no indication of when to choose update over create, delete, move, or retrieve. This absence of usage context scores 1.

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