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 implies a PATCH operation (mutation) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's idempotent, what 'sync' entails (e.g., overwrite, merge), error handling, or side effects. The mention of 'Construction Financials/Change Orders' adds some domain context but lacks operational details.

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 tautological statement and technical context. It's front-loaded but under-specified. No wasted sentences, though it could be more informative. Efficiency is high, but content is lacking.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool with 3 required parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'sync' means operationally, expected outcomes, error conditions, or how it differs from other sync tools. The technical hint (PATCH endpoint) is insufficient 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: project_id (Unique identifier for the project), contract_id (Contract ID), updates (updates). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is high, baseline 3 is appropriate, but the vague 'updates' description in schema could benefit from elaboration.

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 Change Order Requests' is a tautology that restates the tool name. It adds minimal context with '[Construction Financials/Change Orders] PATCH /rest/v1.0/change_order_requests/sync', which hints at the domain and HTTP method but lacks a specific verb-resource-action explanation. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'sync_change_order_packages' or 'sync_budget_line_items'.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Given the sibling list includes many sync tools (e.g., sync_budget_line_items, sync_tasks), the absence of differentiation is a significant gap.

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