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. The description mentions 'PATCH' which implies partial updates, but doesn't clarify what happens with missing fields, whether updates are idempotent, what permissions are required, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with 11 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 technically concise (one sentence with URL), but it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It wastes space on the URL path format instead of explaining the tool's purpose and usage. While brief, it doesn't effectively communicate essential information.

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?

For a complex update tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'Near Miss' is, what fields are updatable beyond the parameter names, what the operation returns, or any behavioral characteristics. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly.

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 already documents all 11 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description.

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 Near Miss. [Project Management/Incidents] PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/incidents/near_misses/{id}' restates the tool name ('Update Near Miss') without adding meaningful context. It includes a URL path but doesn't explain what a 'Near Miss' is or what specific fields can be updated. This is a tautology with minimal additional information.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this tool should be used instead of create_near_miss or other incident-related tools, or any context about appropriate usage scenarios.

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