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. 'Update Category Name' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or rate limits. The HTTP method 'POST' is mentioned but not explained in terms of idempotency or side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 brief but inefficiently structured. 'Update Category Name' wastes space on tautology, while the bracketed text '[Resource Management/Resource Planning]' and endpoint path 'POST /rest/v1.0/workforce-planning/v2/companies/{company_id}/projects/{project_id}/categories/{category_id}' could be better integrated or omitted. The information is front-loaded but lacks meaningful content.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'updating a category name' entails operationally, what validation occurs, or what the response contains. The endpoint path suggests hierarchical resource relationships but this isn't explained. For a 4-parameter mutation tool, this leaves too many unanswered questions.

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 input schema fully documents all four parameters (company_id, project_id, category_id, name) with detailed descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in 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 'Update Category Name' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without providing meaningful context. It lacks a specific verb-resource combination and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_subcategory_name' or 'add_category_to_project'. The bracketed text '[Resource Management/Resource Planning]' is ambiguous and doesn't clarify the actual 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or differentiate it from sibling tools like 'update_subcategory_name' or 'add_category_to_project'. Without any usage context, an agent would struggle to select this tool appropriately.

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