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' which implies a mutation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about permissions required, whether it's idempotent, what happens to unspecified fields, or error conditions. The HTTP method 'PATCH' suggests partial updates, but this isn't explained in the description text itself.

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 with two parts: the functional statement and the technical endpoint. It's front-loaded with the purpose. However, the bracketed '[Project Management/Inspections]' feels like metadata that could be better integrated, and the HTTP endpoint details might be redundant if the agent already has API documentation.

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 'updating' entails, what values are acceptable for 'name' and 'position', whether all fields must be provided, or what the response looks like. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional context.

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 schema already documents all 4 parameters with basic descriptions. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, constraints, or provide examples. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when 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 Company Checklist Section' clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('Company Checklist Section'), but it's vague about what 'update' entails. It doesn't specify what fields can be updated or how it differs from other update tools. The bracketed '[Project Management/Inspections]' adds some domain context but doesn't clarify the purpose further.

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 many sibling tools (e.g., 'update_checklist_section', 'update_company_checklist_template'), there's no indication of how this tool fits into the broader context. The HTTP method 'PATCH' hints at partial updates but doesn't explain when this specific endpoint is appropriate.

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