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 of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Update Generic Tool' and includes a PATCH endpoint, implying a mutation operation, but does not disclose critical behaviors like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, or potential side effects. The description adds minimal context beyond the endpoint.

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 but inefficiently structured. It repeats the tool name and includes an API endpoint that may be redundant with other metadata. While not verbose, it lacks front-loaded clarity and wastes space on information that doesn't aid the agent in tool selection or invocation.

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 of a mutation tool with 7 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain the purpose, usage context, behavioral implications, or expected outcomes. For a tool that modifies resources, this leaves significant gaps in understanding for an 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 clearly documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional semantic information about parameters, such as examples or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but the description fails to 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 restates the tool name ('Update Generic Tool') and includes an API endpoint, but does not clearly articulate what the tool does. It lacks a specific verb-resource-action statement, such as 'Modify settings of a generic tool in a company.' The mention of '[Company Admin/Custom - Configurable Tools]' hints at administrative context but is vague.

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., admin permissions), related tools (e.g., create_generic_tool), or scenarios where this update is appropriate. Without such context, an agent cannot make informed decisions.

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