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. While it mentions 'PATCH' (implying a partial update) and includes a category tag '[Project Management/Inspections]', it fails to describe critical traits like required permissions, whether the update is destructive, rate limits, or the response format. The description is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero 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 and front-loaded with the core action ('Update Company Checklist Template'), followed by technical details. It avoids unnecessary verbosity. However, the inclusion of the endpoint path and HTTP method, while informative, could be considered slightly redundant if the agent already has structured endpoint data, but it doesn't significantly harm clarity.

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 complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral aspects (e.g., permissions, side effects), usage context, and expected outcomes. The agent would struggle to understand the full implications of invoking this tool without additional documentation or trial-and-error.

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 parameters (company_id, id, list_template, attachments). The description adds no additional meaning about these parameters, such as the structure of 'list_template' or how 'attachments' are handled. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, 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 clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('Company Checklist Template'), which is specific. It also includes the HTTP method (PATCH) and endpoint path, adding technical context. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_project_checklist_template' or 'create_company_checklist_template', which slightly limits differentiation.

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 lacks any mention of prerequisites, such as needing an existing template to update, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'create_company_checklist_template' for creation or 'update_project_checklist_template' for project-level updates. This omission leaves the agent without contextual usage cues.

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