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' implying a mutation, but does not disclose required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. The HTTP method 'PATCH' hints at partial updates, but this is not explained. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious.

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 two parts: a tautological title and an HTTP endpoint. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The endpoint details (Platform, HTTP method, path) are useful but could be structured better. It lacks front-loaded clarity, as the first part adds little value.

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 (7 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It does not explain what a webhook hook is, what fields can be updated, or the expected outcome. Without annotations or output schema, the description should compensate with more context, but it fails to do so, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 all parameters documented in the schema (e.g., company_id, destination_url). The description adds no additional semantic meaning about parameters, such as format constraints or relationships between them. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description fails to enhance understanding.

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 Webhooks Hook' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. It specifies the verb 'Update' and resource 'Project Webhooks Hook', but lacks specificity about what aspects are updated (e.g., configuration, destination URL, headers). It does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'update_company_webhooks_hook_v2_0' or 'create_project_webhooks_hook_v2_0', leaving the purpose vague.

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 webhook ID), exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'create_project_webhooks_hook_v2_0' or 'delete_project_webhooks_hook_v2_0'. Without any usage context, the 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.