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 the tool is an update operation (implied mutation) but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, or any rate limits. The HTTP method 'PUT' hints at idempotency, but this is not explicitly explained, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes additional context like the category '[Construction Financials/Work Breakdown Structure]' and the API endpoint, which are relevant but could be more integrated. There is no wasted text, but the structure could be slightly improved for clarity.

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 updating segment orders in a project pattern, the description is insufficient. No annotations are provided, and there is no output schema, so critical details like response format, error handling, or side effects are missing. The description does not compensate for these gaps, making it incomplete for effective tool use.

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 descriptions for 'project_id' and 'updated_order'. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, as it does not explain the structure or format of 'updated_order' (e.g., array of segment IDs). However, the schema already documents parameters adequately, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool's purpose as 'Update Project Pattern's Segment Order', which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_company_patterns_segment_order' or 'add_segment_to_the_project_pattern', leaving the scope vague. The inclusion of '[Construction Financials/Work Breakdown Structure]' adds some context but is not fully explanatory.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing project pattern, and does not mention sibling tools like 'add_segment_to_the_project_pattern' or 'update_company_patterns_segment_order' for comparison. Usage is implied but not clearly defined.

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