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 it does not specify what 'segments' are, whether the update is idempotent, what permissions are required, or what the typical response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 concise and front-loaded with the core action ('Update Company Upload'). The additional technical details are compact. However, the tautological nature means the first part does not add value, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 inadequate. It does not explain what 'segments' are, what the tool updates, or what the expected outcome is. For a mutation tool in a system with many similar tools, more context is needed to guide proper 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 does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it does not explain what 'segments' represent or how they are used). However, with full schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the schema adequately documents the parameters.

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 'update_company_upload_v1_1'. It lacks a specific verb and resource details, and does not distinguish this tool from its many sibling tools (e.g., 'update_company_upload', 'update_project_upload_v1_1'). The additional text '[Core/File Access & Storage] PATCH /rest/v1.1/companies/{company_id}/uploads/{uuid}' provides technical context but does not clarify the tool's functional purpose.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'create_company_upload_v1_1' or 'update_project_upload_v1_1'. The agent receives no help in selecting this tool over others.

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