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 Subcategory Name' which implies a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the update is reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The HTTP method (POST) and path are included, but no behavioral context is added.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose ('Update Subcategory Name'). The additional context (category tags and API path) is minimal but could be considered slightly extraneous. Overall, it's efficient with zero wasted sentences.

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 (a mutation tool with 5 required parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or necessary permissions. For a write operation with no structured safety hints, more context is needed 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%, with all 5 parameters well-documented in the schema (e.g., company_id, project_id, category_id, subcategory_id, name). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states 'Update Subcategory Name' which clearly indicates the action (update) and target resource (subcategory name). However, it's vague about what exactly is being updated—just the name field of a subcategory—and doesn't differentiate from potential siblings like 'update_category_name' or 'add_subcategory_to_category' beyond the title.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., existing subcategory), exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'update_category_name' or 'add_subcategory_to_category'. It's a bare statement without usage context.

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