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. It states 'Update project vendor' and includes an API endpoint hint, but fails to disclose critical traits: it is a mutation (PATCH implies partial update), requires specific permissions, may have validation rules (hinted by 'run_configurable_validations' param), and lacks info on rate limits or side effects. The description adds minimal context beyond the name.

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 extremely concise—two short phrases. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Update project vendor') and includes an API endpoint for context. There is no wasted verbiage, but it may be overly terse given the tool's complexity. Every sentence earns its place, though more detail would be beneficial.

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 tool's complexity (31 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It does not explain the update behavior (e.g., partial vs. full, idempotency), required permissions, error handling, or return values. For a mutation tool with rich parameters, the description should provide more context to guide the agent effectively.

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 31 parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the name and endpoint hint. It does not explain the purpose of key parameters like 'view' or 'run_configurable_validations', or how updates are applied. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description fails to add value.

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 vendor' states the action ('Update') and resource ('project vendor'), but it is vague. It does not specify what aspects of the vendor are updated or the scope of the update. While it distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on vendors, it lacks specificity about the operation's nature (e.g., partial vs. full updates).

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., needing an existing vendor), exclusions, or sibling tools like 'create_project_vendor' or 'update_company_vendor'. The agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone, which is insufficient for clear decision-making.

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