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' which implies a mutation, but fails to describe critical traits: required permissions, whether the update is partial or full, idempotency, side effects (e.g., notifications), error conditions, or response format. The API endpoint hints at a PATCH operation, suggesting partial updates, but this is not explicitly explained. The description is insufficient for a mutation tool with 19 parameters.

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—two concise parts: a functional statement and the API endpoint. It avoids redundancy and is front-loaded with the core action. However, the endpoint detail, while technically useful, could be considered extraneous for an agent's decision-making, 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 (19 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It does not explain the update's scope, behavioral implications, or output expectations. For a tool with many parameters and significant impact, more context is needed to guide safe and correct usage, making it incomplete for the agent's needs.

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 each parameter documented in the schema (e.g., 'effective_date' as 'Effective date', 'status' with enum values). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description, which applies here.

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 insurance' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal added context. It lacks specificity about what aspects of insurance are updated (e.g., policy details, status, dates) and does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_company_insurance' or 'update_project_vendor_insurance', which are present in the sibling list. The inclusion of the API endpoint '[Core/Directory] PATCH /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/vendors/{vendor_id}/insurances/{id}' provides technical routing but does not clarify the 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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., existing insurance record), exclusions, or sibling tools like 'create_company_vendor_insurance' or 'delete_company_vendor_insurance' that handle related operations. Without such context, an agent cannot determine appropriate usage scenarios.

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