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' which implies a mutation, but fails to describe critical behaviors: required permissions, whether changes are reversible, side effects (e.g., impact on existing forms), rate limits, or error conditions. The HTTP method (PATCH) hints at partial updates but is not explained. This leaves significant gaps 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 tautological statement and a technical endpoint reference. While not verbose, the first part adds no value, and the structure is not front-loaded with helpful information. It could be more efficiently structured by integrating the endpoint context into a meaningful purpose statement.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what the tool returns, error handling, or behavioral constraints. The endpoint reference provides some context but fails to address completeness for safe and correct usage, especially in a server with many sibling tools where differentiation is crucial.

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 5 parameters (id, company_id, name, description, fillable_pdf) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. However, with high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as 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 Form Template' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It lacks a clear verb+resource combination and does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_company_folder' or 'update_company_file', which also update company resources. The inclusion of '[Project Management/Forms] PATCH /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/form_templates/{id}' provides technical context but does not clarify the functional purpose beyond the name.

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., needing an existing form template), exclusions, or sibling tools like 'create_company_form_template' or 'delete_company_form_template' for comparison. Without any usage context, an agent cannot determine appropriate invocation scenarios.

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