Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Update layer' with an HTTP PUT hint, but fails to describe critical traits: whether this is a mutation (implied but not explicit), permission requirements, idempotency, error conditions, or what happens on partial updates. The description is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise—just three words plus bracketed context and an HTTP endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, the brevity leads to under-specification rather than efficient communication, as it omits essential details. It earns a 4 for being compact but loses points for lacking 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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a layer is, what fields can be updated, the effect of updates, or the response format. For a mutation tool with rich input schema but no other structured guidance, this description leaves significant gaps for the 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 documented in the schema (e.g., company_id, name, visibility). The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema. However, since schema coverage is high, the baseline score is 3, as the schema already provides necessary parameter details.

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 layer' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It lacks specificity about what a 'layer' is (e.g., in project management/document markup context) and what 'update' entails. While the bracketed context '[Project Management/Document Markup]' and HTTP method 'PUT' provide some hints, the description itself fails to clearly state the verb+resource action, scoring low for purpose clarity.

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 existing layer IDs), exclusions, or sibling tools like 'create_a_new_layer' or 'delete_layer' from the list. Without any usage context, the agent cannot make informed decisions.

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