Procore MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Update company office' but fails to mention that this is a mutation operation, what permissions are required (implied by '[Company Admin/Company Settings]'), potential side effects, or error conditions. The mention of 'PATCH /rest/v1.0/offices/{id}' is technical but does not clarify behavioral traits like idempotency or response format.

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 three elements, but it is not well-structured or front-loaded. It mixes a vague purpose statement with technical details (endpoint and permissions) without clear separation. While brief, it lacks effective organization to guide an agent quickly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what the tool returns, error handling, or the scope of updates. The technical endpoint hint is insufficient for an agent to understand the full context of use, leaving significant gaps in completeness.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for 'id', 'company_id', and 'office'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as explaining the structure of the 'office' object or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 office' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It does not clarify what aspects of an office are updated (e.g., name, address, settings) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'create_company_office' or 'delete_a_company_office', leaving the purpose vague.

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 lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing office ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools, offering no help for an agent in selecting the correct tool for a given scenario.

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