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 'PATCH' implying a partial update, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, what happens to the previous project assignment, or if it's idempotent. The description is minimal and misses key operational details.

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 includes the action, resource, and HTTP method. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could be more structured with additional context.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool with three required parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on return values, error conditions, or side effects, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters (e.g., equipment_id must belong to company_id). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 current project') and resource ('Company'), with the HTTP method PATCH indicating a partial update. It distinguishes from siblings like 'bulk_update_current_project_company_v2_1' by being a single update, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools in the 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing equipment register, or comparisons to other tools like 'set_current_project_company_v2_0' or 'remove_current_project_company_v2_1'.

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