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 'Update' (implying a mutation) and a POST endpoint, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the change is reversible, potential side effects (e.g., affecting other groups), or rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context.

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 with two parts: a brief purpose statement and a URL path. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, the URL path is redundant for tool selection and could be omitted for better focus, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or the impact of the update. For a tool that modifies data, this lack of context 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters (company_id, project_id, group_id, order_index) documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning or clarification about these parameters (e.g., what order_index represents, format, or constraints). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does 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 states the action ('Update group order rank') but is vague about what 'group order rank' means in context. It specifies the resource (group) but lacks clarity on what 'order rank' entails (e.g., repositioning within a list). It does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'update_layer_order_rank' or other group-related tools, leaving ambiguity.

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 includes a category tag '[Project Management/Document Markup]' and a URL path, but these do not offer explicit usage instructions, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., 'update_group' or 'reorder_company_role_v2_0').

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