Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Update' and includes a PATCH endpoint, implying a mutation operation, but fails to describe critical behaviors: required permissions, whether updates are partial or full, side effects, error conditions, or response format. The description is minimal and lacks necessary 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 sentences: one stating the tool's purpose and another providing category and endpoint details. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, the first sentence is redundant with the name, and the endpoint detail, while useful for debugging, does not add operational clarity for an AI agent, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'update' entails, what happens on success or failure, or any constraints (e.g., allowed 'type' values). For a mutation tool with no structured behavioral hints, the description should provide more context to guide safe and correct usage.

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 all parameters (company_id, inspection_template_id, id, name, response_set_id, type) well-documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. However, with high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the schema adequately covers parameter semantics.

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 Inspection Template Item' is essentially a tautology of the tool name, restating 'update' and 'company inspection template item' without adding specificity. It does not clarify what fields can be updated or the scope of the update operation, making it vague. While it includes a category tag '[Project Management/Inspections]' and a REST endpoint, these do not meaningfully elaborate on the tool's 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 existing template items), exclusions, or sibling tools for similar operations (e.g., create_company_inspection_template_item or delete_company_inspection_template_item). The absence of usage context leaves the agent without direction.

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