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 project tools' which implies a mutation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it overwrites or merges existing tools, side effects, or error conditions. The HTTP method (PATCH) hints at partial updates, but this is not explained. The description is minimal and fails to provide necessary operational context.

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 only one sentence plus the endpoint path. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Update project tools'), but the endpoint detail, while technical, is not wasteful as it provides API context. However, it could be more structured by separating functional description from technical details.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on what 'tools' represents, the expected format of the array, the effect of the update, and any return values or confirmation. For a tool that modifies project resources, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to operate safely.

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 both parameters: 'project_id' as a unique identifier and 'tools' as an array. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, such as the structure of 'tools' array items or example values. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, 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 'Update project tools' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It mentions the HTTP method (PATCH) and endpoint path, but does not clarify what 'tools' refers to (e.g., software integrations, equipment, configurations) or what 'update' entails (e.g., adding/removing, modifying settings). Compared to sibling tools like 'update_project' or 'update_project_tools_v1_0', it lacks differentiation.

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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., project access), constraints, or related tools like 'list_project_tools_v1_0' for viewing tools first. Without usage context, an agent cannot make informed decisions.

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