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 indicates a PATCH operation, implying mutation, but fails to specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or response format. The mention of 'Project Management/Incidents' adds minimal context but does not address critical behavioral traits like side effects or error handling.

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 and front-loaded, consisting of a single line that states the action and includes the HTTP method and endpoint. There is no wasted verbiage, though it could be more informative. The structure is efficient, earning a high score for brevity.

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 lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., permissions, side effects), usage guidelines, and output expectations. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and correct tool invocation is insufficient.

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 clear parameter descriptions in the input schema (e.g., 'company_id' as 'Unique identifier for the company'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the high coverage justifies the baseline score of 3, as the schema adequately documents the parameters.

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 Hazard. [Project Management/Incidents] PATCH /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/hazards/{id}' restates the tool name ('Update Hazard') and adds only minimal context (category and HTTP method). It lacks a specific verb-resource combination that clarifies what 'update' entails (e.g., modifying hazard details like name or status) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'bulk_update_hazards' or 'create_hazard', making it 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., needing an existing hazard ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'create_hazard' or 'bulk_update_hazards'. This absence leaves the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios.

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