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. It states 'Update' implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, side effects (e.g., triggering notifications), or response format. The API path hints at a PATCH operation, but this isn't explained for an agent.

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 technical API details. It's front-loaded with the core action, though the API path might be less helpful for an AI agent. No wasted sentences, but could be more structured for clarity.

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 tool's complexity (mutation with 6 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, error conditions, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to safely invoke this tool.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema—it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., that 'alert_recipient_ids' relates to 'email_trigger') or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 Incident Severity Level' clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('Incident Severity Level'), but it's vague about what specific attributes are updated. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'update_incident' or 'update_incident_action_type', leaving ambiguity about scope.

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/Incidents]' and API path, but these don't offer practical usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions for an AI agent.

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