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. It states 'Update Company Upload' and includes an API path, implying a mutation operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions required, side effects, rate limits, or what 'segments' entail. The description is minimal and fails to provide necessary context for safe invocation.

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 parts: a tautological title and an API path. While it avoids unnecessary verbosity, it under-specifies by not providing meaningful context. The structure is front-loaded but lacks substance, making it minimally adequate in length but not effectively informative.

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 an update operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'segments' are, the impact of the update, or the response format. For a mutation tool with undocumented behavior, this leaves significant gaps for the agent to understand the tool's full context and 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 company_id, uuid, and segments. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema adequately documents parameters without needing extra explanation 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 Upload' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It lacks a specific verb and resource details, making the purpose vague. While the API path hints at updating uploads for a company, the description itself does not effectively communicate what the tool does 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, context, or exclusions. Given the many sibling tools (e.g., create_company_upload, update_company_upload_v1_1), the absence of differentiation is a significant gap, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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