Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Sync company users' and includes a technical endpoint '[Core/Directory] PATCH /rest/v1.3/companies/{company_id}/users/sync', which implies a mutation (PATCH) but does not clarify what the sync does (e.g., creates/updates/deletes users), permissions required, side effects, or error handling. This is insufficient 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 two parts: a brief purpose statement and a technical endpoint. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though the endpoint detail might be more appropriate in structured metadata rather than the description itself.

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 user data updates), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain what 'sync' means operationally, expected outcomes, error conditions, or how it differs from other sync tools, leaving 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for 'company_id' and 'updates'. The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as explaining the structure of 'updates' array items. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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' restates the tool name 'sync_company_users_v1_3' with minimal additional detail, making it tautological. It lacks specificity about what 'sync' entails (e.g., updating user data, synchronizing with external systems) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'sync_company_users', 'sync_company_users_v1_1', or 'sync_company_users_v1_2', which appear to be variants.

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 prerequisites, context, or comparisons with sibling tools (e.g., other sync versions or bulk user management tools), 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.