Procore MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'PATCH /rest/v1.0/links/{id}', implying a partial update via HTTP PATCH, but doesn't clarify if this is destructive, what permissions are needed beyond the hint, or how errors are handled. The description is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 but under-specified—it wastes space on tautological phrasing ('Update link') and includes low-value API endpoint details. While front-loaded, it lacks meaningful content, making it inefficient rather than truly concise.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the update behavior, success/failure responses, or how it differs from sibling tools. The minimal guidance and lack of behavioral context leave significant gaps for an 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 clear parameter descriptions in the input schema (e.g., 'Link ID', 'Unique identifier for the project'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3.

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 link' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It doesn't specify what kind of link is being updated or what the update entails, making it vague and unhelpful for distinguishing this tool from others.

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 minimal guidance with '[Company Admin/Project-Level Configuration]', hinting at permission requirements, but fails to explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'bulk_update_links_v2_0' or 'create_link'. No explicit usage context or exclusions are provided.

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