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 only states 'Update project vendor' without indicating whether this is a mutation, what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, or what the response looks like. The HTTP method 'PATCH' is mentioned but not explained in terms of partial updates. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 ('Update project vendor. [Core/Directory] PATCH /rest/v1.1/projects/{project_id}/vendors/{id}'), but this brevity leads to under-specification. The first part is tautological, and the second part includes API endpoint details that may not be helpful for an AI agent. While structured, it fails to convey necessary information efficiently.

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 (31 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the tool's behavior, output, error conditions, or integration with sibling tools. For a vendor update tool in a project management context, this leaves significant gaps for the agent to infer usage.

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 what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between parameters or typical usage patterns. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'update_project_vendor_v1_1' without adding meaningful context. It lacks a specific verb-resource combination and does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_project_vendor' or 'update_company_vendor', which are present in the sibling list.

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, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage instructions. Sibling tools include multiple vendor-related update tools, but no differentiation is provided.

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