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. It states 'Update layer order rank', implying a mutation operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, side effects, or error handling. The HTTP method (POST) and path hint at an API call but lack operational context like rate limits or idempotency.

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 but not optimally structured. It includes the tool's purpose and an API endpoint, which is somewhat front-loaded, but the technical details (POST path) could be better integrated or omitted if not adding value. It avoids verbosity but lacks clarity in its current form.

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 fails to explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or how 'order rank' updates affect the system. Without this context, an agent cannot fully understand the tool's behavior or outcomes.

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 (company_id, project_id, layer_id, order_index) documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what 'order_index' represents or valid ranges. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 order rank' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It lacks a specific verb and resource context beyond the name, and does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'update_layer' or 'reorder_company_role_v2_0'. The addition of '[Project Management/Document Markup] POST /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/projects/{project_id}/layers/{layer_id}/reposition' provides technical context but does not clarify the purpose in plain language.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or comparisons with sibling tools (e.g., 'update_layer', 'group_order_rank'). Without any usage instructions, an agent cannot determine appropriate scenarios for invocation.

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