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 mentions 'PATCH' which implies a partial update, but fails to describe critical behaviors like required permissions, whether updates are reversible, rate limits, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 and front-loaded with the core action ('Update Company WBS Segment'), followed by contextual brackets and the API endpoint. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though the inclusion of the endpoint string adds minor clutter without explanatory value.

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 a 6-parameter update tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the resource being updated, the impact of changes, typical use cases, or expected response format, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 the schema already documents all parameters (e.g., company_id, name, project_can_modify_origin_project). The description adds no additional meaning or context about parameter interactions, default values, or constraints beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 states 'Update Company WBS Segment' which clearly indicates a write operation (update) on a specific resource (Company Work Breakdown Structure Segment). However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_company_segment_item' or 'update_project_wbs_segment', leaving ambiguity about its unique scope.

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 lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing segment), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'create_a_company_wbs_segment' or 'update_project_wbs_segment', 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.