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. It states 'Update', implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the update is reversible, rate limits, or what happens to existing order data. The HTTP method 'PUT' is mentioned, but this is low-level detail that doesn't help the agent understand the tool's behavior in the domain context.

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 and front-loaded with the core action and resource. The inclusion of the HTTP method and endpoint is somewhat technical but doesn't add verbosity. It could be slightly more structured by separating the human-readable purpose from the API details, but it remains efficient with zero wasted sentences.

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 updating segment order (a mutation with potential side effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the expected outcome, error conditions, or how the order array should be structured. For a tool that modifies data in a work breakdown structure, more context is needed to ensure 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 clear descriptions for both parameters ('company_id' and 'updated_order'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. It mentions the resource path but doesn't explain the format of 'updated_order' (e.g., array of segment IDs) or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('Company Pattern's Segment Order'), with additional context in brackets ('Construction Financials/Work Breakdown Structure'). It distinguishes the tool by specifying it's for updating segment order within patterns, which differentiates it from general pattern or segment tools. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'update_project_patterns_segment_order' or 'add_segment_to_the_project_pattern', which would make it a 5.

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 mentions the resource context ('Construction Financials/Work Breakdown Structure') but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or when to choose this over similar tools like 'update_project_patterns_segment_order'. Without such context, the agent lacks operational direction.

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