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 'PATCH' which implies a partial update operation, but doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, what happens to existing fields not mentioned, whether changes are reversible, or any rate limits. The '[Company Admin/Company Settings]' tag suggests administrative access but isn't explicit about authorization requirements.

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 Classification' is redundant with the name, and the URL path and permission tag are presented without clear organization. While concise, it fails to front-load essential information and wastes space on tautological content rather than providing value.

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?

For a mutation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'Classification' is in this context, what fields can be updated, what the response looks like, or any error conditions. The combination of missing behavioral context and lack of output information makes this description incomplete for proper tool 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 all parameters clearly documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 Classification' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It lacks a specific verb and resource context, failing to distinguish what is being updated or how. While it includes a URL path hint ('PATCH /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/work_classifications/{id}'), this is not a clear purpose statement and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_all_classification' or 'create_a_new_classification'.

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, appropriate contexts, or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'update_all_classification' or 'create_a_new_classification'. The '[Company Admin/Company Settings]' tag is ambiguous and doesn't constitute clear usage instructions.

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