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. It states 'Update company File' which implies a mutation operation, but does not disclose critical traits like required authentication, potential side effects (e.g., file versioning, permissions changes), rate limits, or error conditions. The PATCH method hint suggests partial updates, but this is not explicitly explained. The description is minimal and fails to provide adequate behavioral context 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 concise with two parts: a brief functional statement and a technical endpoint reference. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Update company File') and avoids unnecessary verbosity. However, the technical endpoint detail, while informative, could be considered slightly extraneous for an agent-focused description, but it does not significantly detract from 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 (11 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks essential context such as the tool's effect on file state (e.g., versioning, audit trails), error handling, or return values. Without annotations or output schema, the agent has insufficient information to understand the full behavioral impact of invoking this tool, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.

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 detailed descriptions for all 11 parameters (e.g., 'parent_id' for moving files, 'checked_out_until' for checkout management). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description. The description does not compensate but does not detract, so it meets the baseline.

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 File' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'update_company_file' with minimal additional information. It lacks specificity about what 'File' refers to (e.g., document metadata, content, permissions) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'update_project_file' or 'create_company_file', which are present in the sibling list. The inclusion of '[Core/Documents] PATCH /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/files/{id}' adds technical context but does not clarify the functional 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., required permissions), when not to use it (e.g., for creating new files), or refer to sibling tools like 'create_company_file' or 'update_project_file' for context. The agent is left without any usage direction.

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