Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions a PATCH operation, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, side effects on existing roles, or error conditions. This is a significant gap 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 a single, efficient sentence that includes the tool name and API endpoint. It's front-loaded with the core action, though it could be more informative. There's no wasted verbiage, making it structurally sound.

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 of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error handling, or the impact of the update. For a tool that modifies user-project role associations, more context is needed for safe and effective use.

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 already documents all three parameters (id, project_id, user_ids). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 the action ('Update User Project Roles') and mentions the resource, but it's vague about what 'update' entails (e.g., adding/removing users, changing roles). It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_role_to_project' or 'update_vendor_project_roles', leaving ambiguity in scope.

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. With many sibling tools managing project roles (e.g., 'add_role_to_project', 'update_vendor_project_roles'), the description lacks context on prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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