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 only states 'Update Contributing Behavior' and includes an HTTP PATCH method, implying a partial update mutation. However, it fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: required permissions, whether changes are reversible, side effects, rate limits, or response format. The PATCH method hint is minimal value without further context.

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, compact line with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Update Contributing Behavior') and includes supplementary technical context (category and HTTP method). While lacking depth, it is efficiently structured without redundancy.

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 tool's mutation nature, 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a 'Contributing Behavior' is, what fields can be updated beyond 'name' and 'active', error conditions, or typical outcomes. For a PATCH operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves 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%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the company', 'Flag that denotes if the Contributing Behavior is available for use'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema. According to 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 Contributing Behavior. [Project Management/Incidents] PATCH /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/contributing_behaviors/{id}' restates the tool name ('Update Contributing Behavior') without adding specificity. It includes a category hint and HTTP method, but lacks a clear verb-resource-action statement that distinguishes it from siblings like 'bulk_update_contributing_behaviors' or 'create_contributing_behavior'. The purpose is vague beyond the obvious 'update' operation.

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 (e.g., existing contributing behavior ID), differentiate from bulk update operations, or specify typical use cases. Without any usage context, the agent has no basis for choosing this tool over similar ones in the sibling list.

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