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 of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Update Webhooks Hook' and includes an HTTP method (PATCH), implying a mutation operation, but fails to describe critical behaviors such as required permissions, whether the update is partial or full, idempotency, rate limits, or error conditions. The endpoint path hints at an ID parameter but does not elaborate on its role or constraints.

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 brief and front-loaded with the tool's purpose, but it includes extraneous technical details like the platform tag and full endpoint path that do not aid an AI agent in understanding usage. While not verbose, it wastes space on information better suited to structured fields, reducing its effectiveness as a concise, value-adding description.

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 mutation nature (implied by 'Update' and PATCH), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key contextual aspects such as what fields can be updated, expected response format, error handling, or security requirements. For a tool that modifies webhooks, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to operate safely and 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter documented as 'Webhooks Hook ID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, as it does not explain the ID's format, source, or relationship to other parameters (though none exist). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 Webhooks Hook. [Platform - Developer Tools/Webhooks] PATCH /rest/v1.0/webhooks/hooks/{id}' is a tautology that restates the tool name ('Update Webhooks Hook') and adds only technical endpoint details. It lacks a specific verb-resource combination explaining what 'update' entails (e.g., modifying configuration, status, or payload) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'create_webhooks_hook' or 'delete_webhooks_hook'.

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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing webhook ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., 'create_webhooks_hook' for new webhooks, 'delete_webhooks_hook' for removal). The description offers no contextual usage information.

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