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 an API path, lacking details on what 'sync' entails (e.g., creates/updates/deletes users, permissions needed, side effects, rate limits). This leaves the agent with insufficient information to understand the tool's behavior.

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 parts: a purpose statement and an API path. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, though the purpose statement is overly brief and lacks substance, which slightly reduces its effectiveness.

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), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what 'sync' does, the expected input format for 'updates', or the return values, leaving significant gaps for the agent to operate 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 descriptions for 'company_id' and 'updates'. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since the schema is well-documented, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden.

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 'sync_company_users_v1_1' without adding clarity. It lacks a specific verb and resource details, and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'sync_company_users_v1_2' or 'sync_company_users_v1_3', 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 fails to differentiate from sibling sync tools (e.g., v1_2, v1_3), offering no usage instructions.

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