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 states 'Update' implying a mutation, but fails to disclose critical traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, side effects, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with 20 parameters.

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 with a single sentence, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It includes an API endpoint reference '[Core/Directory] PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/insurances/{id}' which adds technical detail but does not improve clarity for an AI agent.

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 a mutation tool with 20 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It should explain the update scope, required fields, and behavioral context to compensate for the lack of structured data, but it does not, leaving significant gaps.

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 20 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 project insurance' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It lacks a clear verb+resource distinction and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_company_insurance' or 'create_project_insurance', leaving the purpose vague.

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, context, or exclusions, offering no help for an agent to decide between this and sibling tools like 'create_project_insurance' or 'delete_project_insurance'.

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