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 endpoint reference, lacking critical details such as whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, required permissions, rate limits, or what 'sync' entails (e.g., batch updates, conflict resolution). The description is insufficient for a mutation tool with no 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 two short phrases, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It wastes space on an API endpoint reference ('[Core/Directory] PATCH /rest/v1.2/companies/{company_id}/users/sync') that adds little value for an AI agent, though the structure is not overly verbose.

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 involving batch updates), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'sync' does, the expected input format for 'updates', or the response structure, leaving significant gaps for effective tool use.

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 both parameters ('company_id' and 'updates'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since the schema is well-documented, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as it doesn't degrade understanding.

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_2', providing no additional clarity. It does not specify what 'sync' entails (e.g., create, update, delete users) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'sync_company_users_v1_1' 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 it from similar sibling tools (e.g., 'sync_company_users_v1_1', 'sync_company_users_v1_3'), making it misleadingly generic.

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