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 current project' which implies a mutation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits: required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on conflict, if it's destructive to existing data, or typical response format. The description is minimal and fails to inform the agent about the tool's operational behavior.

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—a single sentence plus the URL path. However, it is not front-loaded with useful information; the first part is tautological, and the URL is technical detail that doesn't aid understanding. While brief, it lacks substance, making it minimally adequate but not helpful.

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 (a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'current project' means, what is being updated, the effect of the update, or what the agent should expect in return. For a tool that likely modifies project-equipment associations, this leaves critical gaps in 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 (e.g., 'Equipment Id', 'The Id of the project', 'Unique identifier for the company.'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Since the schema fully documents the parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 current project (Project)' is tautological—it essentially restates the tool name 'update_current_project_project_v2_0' without adding clarity. It does not specify what aspect of the project is being updated (e.g., equipment register linkage) or what 'current project' means in context. The URL path hints at equipment register association, but this is not explained in the description itself.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given sibling tools like 'bulk_update_current_project_project_v2_0', 'set_current_project_project_v2_0', 'remove_current_project_project_v2_0', and 'associate_equipment_with_project_project_v2_0', there is no indication of differentiation—such as bulk operations, setting vs. updating, or removal scenarios. The agent is left with no usage context.

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