Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation (PATCH) but doesn't clarify permissions required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on partial updates, or error conditions. The API endpoint hint offers some context but falls short of describing operational behavior, leaving significant gaps 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 brief and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence with the API endpoint. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though it could be more informative. The structure is clear but under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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?

For a mutation tool with 12 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what an 'Environmental' is, the update semantics, or the response format. Given the complexity and lack of structured support, more context is needed to make this tool usable 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 each parameter well-documented in the schema (e.g., 'project_id' as 'Unique identifier for the project'). The description adds no additional parameter context beyond the endpoint path parameters, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting but doesn't compensate or enhance understanding.

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 Environmental. [Project Management/Incidents] PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/incidents/environmentals/{id}' is tautological—it essentially restates the tool name 'update_environmental' with minimal elaboration. It provides the API endpoint but doesn't specify what an 'Environmental' resource is or what fields can be updated, leaving the purpose vague beyond a generic 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 lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing environmental record), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'create_environmental' or 'destroy_environmental', making it unhelpful for decision-making.

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