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 'Update' and includes an HTTP method (PATCH), implying a mutation, but does not disclose critical traits like whether this requires specific permissions beyond the implied admin role, what happens on success/failure, rate limits, or side effects. The description adds some context with the permission hint but is insufficient 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 Concierge parameters.'). The additional context ('[Company Admin/Company Settings] PATCH /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/concierge') is relevant but could be more integrated. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, expected outcomes, error handling, and the nature of 'Concierge parameters'. The permission hint is a start, but more context is needed for the agent to use this tool effectively, especially since it involves updating company-level settings.

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 each parameter in the input schema (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the company'). The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides—it does not explain parameter relationships, constraints, or usage. With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the schema adequately documents parameters without extra help from 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 states the action ('Update') and resource ('Concierge parameters'), which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it does not specify what 'Concierge parameters' are or what fields can be updated, leaving the purpose somewhat vague. It does not differentiate from sibling tools, as there are no obvious direct siblings for updating concierge parameters in the provided list.

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 bracketed note '[Company Admin/Company Settings]', which implies a required permission or context, but this is not explicit guidance on when to use this tool. It does not mention when not to use it, what prerequisites exist, or any alternatives. The guidance is minimal and lacks clear usage instructions.

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