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 'PATCH' which implies a partial update operation, but doesn't clarify what happens during updates (e.g., whether all fields must be provided, if updates are atomic, what permissions are required, or what the response contains). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents significant gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 technically concise but inefficiently structured. The first part 'Update Company Segment Item' is redundant with the tool name. The endpoint path provides useful technical context but could be better integrated with functional explanation. While brief, it fails to front-load the most helpful information for an AI agent trying to understand when and how to use this tool.

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 this is a mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'Company Segment Item' is in the Work Breakdown Structure context, what fields can be updated, what the update operation returns, or any error conditions. The technical endpoint path adds some context but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral and usage information needed for proper tool invocation.

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 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide examples, or clarify edge cases. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 Segment Item' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It includes a technical endpoint path '[Construction Financials/Work Breakdown Structure] PATCH /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/work_breakdown_structure/segments/{segment_id}/segment_items/{id}' which provides some domain context but doesn't clearly articulate what the tool does in plain language. It lacks a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this update operation is appropriate, or what distinguishes it from other update tools in the sibling list (like 'update_project_segment_item' or 'update_company_wbs_segment'). The agent receives no usage context beyond the technical endpoint.

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