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 mentions 'Update' but does not disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the update is partial or full, potential side effects (e.g., affecting webhook deliveries), or error handling. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 with two sentences: one stating the tool's purpose and another providing API context. It is front-loaded with the core action, though the API path detail may be redundant if the agent already has structured endpoint information. Overall, it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 webhook update tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on what the update entails (e.g., partial vs. full updates), expected outcomes, error conditions, or how it differs from sibling tools, leaving the agent under-informed for proper invocation.

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 fully documents all 7 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between fields (e.g., how 'status' interacts with 'destination_url'). Baseline 3 is appropriate given 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 the verb ('Update') and resource ('Company Webhooks Hook'), which clarifies the action and target. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., 'update_project_webhooks_hook_v2_0') or specify what aspects of the webhook are updated, making it somewhat vague compared to ideal clarity.

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, such as create or delete webhook tools. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing webhook ID) or typical scenarios for updating a webhook, 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.