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 states 'Update' implying a mutation but does not disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it overwrites or merges roles, or any side effects. This is inadequate 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 sentence but includes redundant API path details ('[Core/Project] PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/vendor_project_roles/{id}') that do not aid an AI agent. It is front-loaded but wastes space on implementation specifics rather than user-focused guidance.

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 a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'update' entails (e.g., replacing vendor associations), expected outcomes, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 parameter descriptions (e.g., 'ID of the Project Role', 'Vendor IDs to associate'). The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as 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 'Update Vendor Project Roles' restates the tool name without adding specificity. It lacks a clear verb+resource combination and does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'update_user_project_roles' or 'add_role_to_project', 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, offering no help for an agent to decide between this and similar update or role management tools.

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