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 mentions 'PATCH' which implies a mutation operation, but does not describe what 'sync' entails (e.g., whether it updates, merges, or overwrites data), potential side effects, permissions required, or error handling. The description is too sparse to inform the agent about key behavioral traits beyond the HTTP method.

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 brief functional label and technical details. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though minimal. There is no wasted verbiage, but it could be more informative while remaining brief. The structure is efficient but under-specified.

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 (likely a mutation with data updates), no annotations, no output schema, and a vague parameter description, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'sync' means in this context, what the 'updates' array should contain, or what the tool returns. For a mutation tool with critical behavioral implications, this leaves significant gaps for the 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?

The input schema has one parameter 'updates' with 100% schema description coverage, but the schema description is just 'updates' (tautological). The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, but the description fails to compensate for the vague schema description, leaving the parameter meaning unclear.

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 (Alternative). [Core/Directory] PATCH /rest/v1.0/insurances/sync' restates the tool name with 'Sync Company Insurances' and adds technical details (HTTP method and endpoint), but it does not clearly explain what the tool does beyond the name. It lacks a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from its sibling 'sync_company_insurances' (implied alternative), making the purpose vague and minimally informative.

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 mentions '(Alternative)' but does not specify what it is an alternative to, under what conditions it should be chosen, or any prerequisites. Without explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, the agent has no usage context beyond the tool name.

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