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 program' which implies a mutation, but fails to disclose behavioral traits like required permissions (hinted at by '[Company Admin/Company Settings]' but not explained), whether changes are destructive, rate limits, or response format. The mention of 'PATCH' and path adds some context but 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 includes the HTTP method and path ('PATCH /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/programs/{id}'), which adds technical context, but the core purpose statement is too brief. The structure is front-loaded with 'Update program', but lacks elaboration, making it inefficient in conveying necessary 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?

Given the complexity of a mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain required permissions, behavioral implications, or what the update entails, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to invoke it correctly in a real-world context.

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 additional meaning about parameters beyond implying an update operation. It meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but does not compensate with extra insights.

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 program' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It lacks a specific verb-resource combination (e.g., 'Modify program details') and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'update_project' or 'update_program' (if duplicates exist), making it vague about what 'program' entails.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., admin permissions), context (e.g., company settings), or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage instructions.

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