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 a PATCH operation, implying a mutation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether this requires admin permissions, what happens on success/failure, or if it's idempotent. The role hint '[Company Admin/Custom - Configurable Tools]' is insufficient as it doesn't explicitly state permission requirements or side effects.

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 but poorly structured. It front-loads the tautological title, followed by a bracketed role hint and endpoint. While it avoids unnecessary words, the information is not organized to aid understanding—key details like purpose are missing, and the endpoint is redundant with the tool name. It earns a middle score for brevity but lacks effective communication.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is inadequate. It does not explain what a 'Generic Tool Item Response' is, what the update entails, or what the tool returns. The role hint and endpoint do not compensate for the lack of behavioral and output context, leaving significant gaps 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 all parameters clearly documented in the input schema (e.g., IDs for project, generic tool, item, and response, plus an 'official' boolean). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. 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 Generic Tool Item Response' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It includes a bracketed role hint '[Company Admin/Custom - Configurable Tools]' and a PATCH endpoint, but does not specify what the tool actually does (e.g., what a 'Generic Tool Item Response' is or what fields can be updated). It fails to distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_generic_tool' or 'update_generic_tool_item'.

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 specific permissions implied by the role hint), nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_generic_tool_item_response' or 'list_responses_for_a_generic_tool_item'. The bracketed role hint is vague and not actionable for an AI agent.

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