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 User Permission' and includes 'PATCH', implying a mutation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it overwrites or merges permissions, side effects, or error conditions. The description is minimal and fails to provide necessary context for safe invocation.

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 (one sentence) but not front-loaded with useful information. It wastes space on the HTTP method/path and a category tag instead of explaining the tool's purpose. While brief, it lacks structure that aids understanding, such as separating intent from technical details.

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 (mutation with 3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, error handling, or security implications. For a permission-updating tool, this gap is significant, as the agent lacks context to use it correctly without trial and error.

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 clear descriptions for company_id, id, and user_access_level_id (including enum mapping). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description could have clarified the 'id' parameter's role (e.g., permission record ID).

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 User Permission. [Project Management/Field Productivity] PATCH /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/managed_equipment/user_permissions' restates the tool name ('Update User Permission') and adds only a category tag and HTTP method/path. It does not specify what resource is being updated (e.g., permissions for managed equipment users) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'update_user_project_roles' or 'update_permission_template_assignment_for_a_user_on_a_project'. The purpose is vague beyond the name.

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 a company_id), exclusions, or related tools. Given many sibling tools for updating permissions or user roles, the lack of context leaves the agent guessing.

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