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. It mentions the required permission context ('[Company Admin/Company Settings]'), which is useful, but lacks details on behavioral traits such as whether the update is destructive (overwrites existing logo), any rate limits, response format, or error conditions. The HTTP method 'PUT' implies idempotent replacement, but this is not explained.

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 a single, efficient sentence that combines the action, resource, permission hint, and API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Update company's logo'), and the additional details are relevant but could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating usage notes). There is no wasted verbiage.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool. It misses critical details: how the logo data is provided (e.g., via file upload or URL), the expected response format, error handling, and confirmation of success. The permission hint is helpful, but overall, the description does not adequately prepare an agent for invoking this tool.

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 descriptions for both parameters ('company_id' and 'type'). The description does not add any additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides (e.g., explaining what 'pcn' means for the 'type' enum or how the logo data is provided). Since the schema is well-documented, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('company's logo'), making the purpose evident. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_a_project_logo' or 'delete_the_project_logo', but the verb 'Update' implies modification of an existing logo, which is distinct from creation or deletion.

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 includes a hint about required permissions ('[Company Admin/Company Settings]'), which provides some context for when to use it. However, it does not offer explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., 'create_a_project_logo' for new logos or 'delete_the_project_logo' for removal), nor does it mention prerequisites like having an existing logo to update.

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