Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Update' implying a mutation, but fails to disclose any behavioral traits: required permissions, whether updates are partial/full, idempotency, side effects, or error conditions. The endpoint reference hints at a PATCH operation but doesn't explain its implications.

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 extremely concise (one phrase plus endpoint), but this brevity comes at the cost of usefulness. The endpoint reference is technical clutter that doesn't aid an AI agent. While not verbose, it's under-specified rather than efficiently 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?

For a mutation tool with 5 parameters (including a nested object), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't address what a successful update returns, error handling, or the update's scope. The agent must rely entirely on the input schema without behavioral context.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema—it doesn't explain the vendor object structure, view enum implications, or validation behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 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 'Update company vendor' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It lacks specificity about what fields can be updated or the scope of the operation. While it includes a technical endpoint reference '[Core/Directory] PATCH /rest/v1.0/vendors/{id}', this adds minimal semantic value for an AI agent.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites, context, or sibling tool comparisons are mentioned. Given the many sibling tools (like create_company_vendor, update_company_vendor_insurance), this absence is particularly problematic.

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