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 Stamp' which implies a mutation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the update is idempotent, what happens to unspecified fields, or error conditions. The HTTP PUT method hints at idempotency, but this is not explicitly stated in the description.

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 brief purpose statement and an HTTP method/path. However, it is under-specified—the purpose statement is vague, and the technical details (PUT path) are useful but not a substitute for a clear functional description. It avoids redundancy but lacks necessary explanatory content.

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 (11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a stamp is, what the update entails, or the expected outcome. The agent must rely solely on the input schema for understanding, which is insufficient for a mutation tool with many parameters and no behavioral context.

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 11 parameters (e.g., stamp_id, title, background_color). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the 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 Stamp. [Project Management/Document Markup] PUT /rest/v2.0/companies/{company_id}/projects/{project_id}/viewer_documents/stamps/{stamp_id}' restates the tool name ('Update Stamp') and adds a category label and HTTP method/path, but does not specify what a 'stamp' is or what fields can be updated. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_stamp_v2_0' by implying update vs. delete, but lacks clarity on the resource being modified.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing stamp), compare to sibling tools (e.g., 'save_stamp_v2_0' for creation), or specify constraints. Usage is implied only by the HTTP method and path structure.

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