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 mentions 'Update' implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the update is destructive, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The REST endpoint hint (PATCH) adds minimal context but is insufficient for an agent.

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 a REST endpoint. It's front-loaded with the action, but the endpoint detail might be extraneous for an agent. However, it's efficiently structured with no 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 of a mutation tool with 4 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial details like what 'Wbs Attributes' entail, expected outcomes, error conditions, or how it differs from similar tools, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 in the schema (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the company'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since coverage is high, 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 states 'Update Wbs Attributes' which provides a clear verb ('Update') and resource ('Wbs Attributes'), but it's vague about what specific attributes are updated. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'update_wbs_attribute_item_v2_0' or 'update_wbs_codes', leaving ambiguity about 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description includes a context signal '[Construction Financials/Work Breakdown Structure]' and a REST endpoint, but these don't offer practical usage instructions or differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_wbs_attribute_item_v2_0' or 'update_wbs_codes'.

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