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 'Sync' and includes a PATCH method, implying a mutation operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, side effects, rate limits, or what 'sync' entails (e.g., overwriting, merging). This is inadequate 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 concise with a single sentence and includes the HTTP method and endpoint, which is efficient. However, it lacks front-loaded critical information like purpose or usage, slightly reducing its effectiveness despite minimal waste.

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 sync operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'sync' means, the expected behavior, or the return format, leaving significant gaps for the agent to infer correctly.

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., 'company_id' as a unique identifier, 'updates' as an array). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where 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 'Sync Company Insurances' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It lacks a specific verb and resource details, and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'sync_company_insurances_alternative' or 'sync_company_vendor_insurances', leaving the purpose vague.

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. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and fails to reference sibling tools like 'sync_company_insurances_alternative', leaving the agent without usage direction.

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