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 Folder' which implies a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like required permissions, whether updates are destructive or reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. The API path hint suggests it's a PATCH operation, but this isn't explicitly explained for an AI agent.

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 very concise with just one sentence plus an API path. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Update company Folder'). However, the API path inclusion might be slightly redundant or technical clutter for an AI agent, though it doesn't significantly harm readability.

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 (a mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the update behavior, what fields can be modified, or the expected outcome. For a tool that modifies company folders, more context about permissions, side effects, and typical usage is needed to be complete.

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 fully documents all 7 parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., that 'parent_id' moves the folder) or provide examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't add value 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 states 'Update company Folder' which clearly indicates the verb (update) and resource (company folder). However, it's vague about what specific attributes can be updated and doesn't distinguish this tool from other folder-related tools in the sibling list (like 'create_company_folder' or 'update_project_folder'). The API path inclusion adds technical context but doesn't enhance 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes 'create_company_folder' and 'update_project_folder', but the description doesn't explain when to update a company folder versus creating one or updating a project folder. There's no mention of prerequisites, permissions, or typical use cases.

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