Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Update' which implies a mutation, but does not clarify permissions needed, side effects (e.g., whether changes are reversible), or response format. The PATCH method hint suggests partial updates, but this is not explicitly explained. The description lacks critical behavioral details for a mutation tool.

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 brief but inefficiently structured. The first part is tautological, and the second part includes technical API details that may not aid an AI agent in tool selection. While not verbose, it fails to front-load useful information, making it less effective despite its conciseness.

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 tool's complexity (mutation with 4 required parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what 'business_register' entails, the impact of updates, or expected outcomes. For a mutation tool in a vendor management context, more contextual information is needed to ensure 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 parameter descriptions (e.g., 'ID of the Company Vendor', 'Entity Type' with enum values). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even without param details 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 Vendor Business Register' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It does not specify what 'update' entails (e.g., modifying fields like type or identifier) or distinguish it from sibling tools (e.g., 'create_company_vendor_business_register'). The inclusion of '[Core/Directory] PATCH /rest/v1.0/vendors/{id}/business_register' provides technical context but does not improve the functional understanding 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., existing vendor ID), exclusions, or related tools like 'create_company_vendor_business_register' or 'update_company_vendor'. Without any usage context, an agent cannot make informed decisions.

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