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. The description mentions it's a PATCH operation, implying partial updates, but doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what happens to existing fields not mentioned, whether changes are reversible, or what the response format looks like. For a mutation tool with 19 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise with just two parts: the tool name restatement and the API endpoint. While under-specified for a complex tool, it's not verbose or poorly structured. The API endpoint provides useful technical context in a compact format.

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?

For a complex mutation tool with 19 parameters, 3 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what permissions are needed, how partial updates work, or provide any behavioral context. The API endpoint is helpful but doesn't compensate for the missing operational guidance.

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 19 parameters with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 Insurance' is a tautology that restates the tool name. It adds the API endpoint '[Core/Directory] PATCH /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/insurances/{id}' which provides technical context but doesn't explain what the tool actually does beyond the obvious 'update' verb. It doesn't specify what insurance fields can be updated or the scope of the operation.

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 tools list includes 'create_company_insurance' and 'delete_company_insurance', but the description doesn't differentiate this update operation from those create/delete operations or explain when updating is appropriate versus creating new insurance records.

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