Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Update group' without explaining what the update does (e.g., mutates group properties, requires permissions, or has side effects). The URL path hints at a PUT operation but lacks details on behavior, making it insufficient 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 short phrase and a URL path. It wastes no words, though it could be more informative. The structure is efficient, but the content is under-specified rather than 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?

Given the complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's behavior, return values, or usage context. For a mutation tool with rich parameters, this leaves 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with all 9 parameters documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as explaining what 'layer_id' or 'order_index' mean in context. However, with full schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 group' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It includes a bracketed context '[Project Management/Document Markup]' and a URL path, but these do not specify what a 'group' is or what updating entails, leaving the purpose 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or sibling tools (like 'create_a_new_group' or 'delete_group'), leaving the agent without usage context.

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