Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, side effects, or response format. The API path suggests a PATCH operation, but this isn't explicitly stated or explained. For a mutation tool with 10 parameters, this is insufficient.

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 ('Update image. [Project Management/Photos] PATCH /rest/v1.0/images/{id}') but under-specified rather than concise. The first part is tautological, while the bracketed API context is useful but not integrated into a coherent sentence. It's front-loaded but lacks substance.

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 (10 parameters, mutation tool, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the tool's role in the system, what 'image' refers to, or the update semantics. The API path provides some context, but overall, it leaves too many gaps for effective agent use.

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 well-documented in the schema (e.g., 'ID of the image', 'Image description'). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema. According to rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description.

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 image' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It adds '[Project Management/Photos] PATCH /rest/v1.0/images/{id}' which provides some API context, but doesn't specify what 'update' entails (e.g., modifying metadata, categories, location) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'create_image' or 'delete_image'. It lacks a clear verb+resource+scope statement.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., existing image ID), when not to use it, or comparison with sibling tools like 'create_image' or 'delete_image'. The API path hint doesn't substitute for usage instructions.

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