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 states 'Update image category' which implies a mutation operation, but fails to describe any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the update is partial or full, idempotency, error conditions, or what happens to unspecified fields. The endpoint hint 'PATCH /rest/v1.0/image_categories/{id}' suggests a partial update, but this is not explicitly explained in the description.

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 short phrases, but it is not well-structured or front-loaded with essential information. The first phrase 'Update image category' is vague, and the bracketed note and endpoint are technical details that don't improve clarity. While it avoids verbosity, it under-specifies the tool's purpose, making it less helpful than a more informative yet concise description would be.

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 5 parameters (3 required) and no annotations or output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain the update behavior, return values, error handling, or relationship to other tools. The agent must rely entirely on the schema for parameter details and has no guidance on usage or outcomes, leaving significant gaps for safe and correct tool invocation.

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 clearly documented in the input schema (e.g., 'ID of the image category', 'Unique identifier for the project.'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 category' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It lacks specificity about what an 'image category' is or what fields can be updated. While it includes a bracketed note '[Project Management/Photos]' and a PATCH endpoint, these are technical details that don't clarify the functional purpose or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'create_image_category' or 'delete_image_category'.

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 an existing image category ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'create_image_category' or 'delete_image_category'. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and schema.

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