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 states 'Update context' and includes a PUT endpoint, implying a mutation operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it overwrites or merges settings, side effects, or error conditions. The description lacks critical transparency for a mutation tool.

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 parts: a brief purpose statement and a REST endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core action, though the purpose statement is under-specified. There is no wasted verbosity, but it could be more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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 5 parameters (including a nested object) and no annotations or output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain what 'context' is, what the update entails, or the expected behavior, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand and use the tool correctly.

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 all parameters documented in the schema (e.g., company_id, project_id, context_id, name, settings). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without param info in 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 'Update context' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It provides a domain hint '[Project Management/Document Markup]' and a REST endpoint, but does not specify what 'context' refers to or what the update action entails. This leaves the purpose vague compared to sibling tools like 'create_a_new_context' or 'get_context_by_id'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, related operations, or differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., 'create_a_new_context', 'delete_context_by_id'). This absence makes it difficult for an agent to 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.