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 states 'PATCH', implying a partial update/mutation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as what 'sync' entails (e.g., merging, overwriting, conflict resolution), permissions required, side effects, or error handling. The description is too vague to inform safe or effective use.

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 but not front-loaded with useful information. It includes technical endpoint details that may not aid an AI agent in understanding the tool's purpose. While concise, it lacks effective structure to convey key information quickly, making it inefficient despite its short length.

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 implied by 'sync' (a mutation operation with an array of updates), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what the tool returns, how updates are processed, or potential impacts. For a tool with two required parameters and likely nuanced behavior, this leaves significant gaps for an AI 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 parameters 'project_id' and 'updates' documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about these parameters (e.g., what 'updates' array contains or the sync logic). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but the description fails to compensate for the vague 'updates' parameter.

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 'Sync Calendar Items' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It mentions '[Project Management/Schedule (Legacy)] PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/schedule/calendar_items/sync', which provides technical endpoint details but does not clearly explain what the tool does (e.g., what 'sync' means operationally). It lacks a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings.

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 any prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Given the many sibling tools (e.g., 'create_calendar_item', 'list_calendar_items', 'update_calendar_item'), there is no indication of how this tool differs or when it is appropriate.

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