Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'Update' without disclosing behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, if it overwrites or merges fields, error handling, or side effects. This is a significant gap 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 extremely concise—two short phrases—with zero wasted words. However, it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative, lacking necessary context for a tool of this complexity.

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 (20 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the update behavior, return values, error conditions, or any system-specific nuances, leaving the agent poorly equipped to use this tool correctly.

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 documents all 20 parameters adequately. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the endpoint path, which implies IDs are needed but doesn't clarify beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 insurance' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it a tautology. It adds a technical endpoint path but fails to specify what fields can be updated or the scope of the operation, leaving the purpose vague beyond the obvious.

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., existing insurance records), differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_project_vendor_insurance' or 'update_company_vendor_insurance', or specify any contextual constraints.

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