Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Update Work Activity' and includes an API endpoint, implying a mutation operation but lacking critical details: whether it requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on partial updates, or error conditions. The PATCH method hint suggests partial updates, but this is not explicitly explained. The description is insufficient 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 brief and front-loaded with the core action ('Update Work Activity'). However, the inclusion of the API endpoint adds technical detail that may not be necessary for an AI agent, and the category hint '[Project Management/Incidents]' is somewhat redundant. It is efficient but could be more streamlined by focusing on functional intent.

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 incomplete. It fails to explain the update behavior (e.g., partial vs. full updates), expected response format, error handling, or side effects. Sibling tools like 'create_work_activity' and 'delete_work_activity' exist, but no differentiation is provided. The description does not adequately prepare the agent for safe and correct invocation.

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 all parameters (company_id, id, name, active). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, not explaining relationships (e.g., id identifies the work activity to update) or constraints (e.g., name may have length limits). 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 Work Activity. [Project Management/Incidents] PATCH /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/incidents/work_activities/{id}' restates the tool name ('Update Work Activity') and adds only a category hint and API endpoint. It lacks a specific verb-resource-action statement (e.g., 'Modify the name and active status of an existing work activity record') and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'bulk_update_work_activities' or 'create_work_activity', making it vague and tautological.

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 an existing work activity ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'create_work_activity' or 'delete_work_activity'. Without any usage context, the agent cannot make informed decisions.

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