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 'Sync company users' with a technical endpoint reference, which implies a mutation operation but does not clarify permissions, side effects, rate limits, or what 'sync' entails (e.g., data overwriting, conflict resolution). This leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 short phrases, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It front-loads the core action ('Sync company users') but wastes space on a technical endpoint detail that adds little value for an AI agent. While not verbose, it lacks substantive content, making it lean but insufficient.

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' does, the expected behavior, or the return format. For a mutation tool with potential side effects, this leaves the agent without necessary context to use the tool effectively.

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 'company_id' and 'updates' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, such as the structure of 'updates' or usage context. Since the schema carries the burden, 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 'Sync company users' is a tautology that restates the tool name, providing no additional clarity. It lacks a specific verb and resource details, failing to distinguish what 'sync' entails or what resources are involved. Compared to sibling tools like 'sync_company_users_v1_1', it does not differentiate itself, 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and with sibling tools like 'sync_company_users_v1_1', 'sync_company_users_v1_2', and 'sync_company_users_v1_3' present, there is no indication of how this tool differs or when it should be selected over them.

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