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 Department' which implies a mutation, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: required permissions, whether updates are partial or full, idempotency, error conditions, or what happens to unspecified fields. The endpoint hint ('PATCH') suggests partial updates, but this is not explicitly stated in the description text.

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 (one line) but poorly structured. It front-loads the tautological 'Update Department' and buries the endpoint details. While brief, it wastes space on redundant name restatement rather than adding value. It could be more effectively structured with a clear purpose statement first.

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 3 required parameters including a nested object), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain the update behavior, response format, error handling, or security requirements. For a tool that modifies organizational data, this lack of context poses significant risks for 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 (id, company_id, department object). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema—it does not explain the structure of the 'department' object or provide examples. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 Department. [Core/Directory] PATCH /rest/v1.0/departments/{id}' is a tautology that restates the tool name ('Update Department') and adds only technical endpoint details. It lacks a specific verb-resource-action statement (e.g., what fields can be updated) and does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_company_office' or 'update_project_region', which are also update operations on different resources.

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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing department ID), exclusions, or related tools (e.g., 'create_department' for creation, 'delete_department' for deletion). With hundreds of sibling tools, the absence of usage context leaves the agent guessing.

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