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 mentions 'PATCH' in the endpoint, implying a mutation operation, but does not clarify if this is destructive, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., overwriting existing data). The term 'sync' is ambiguous—it could mean incremental updates or full replacements. The description fails to provide necessary behavioral context for safe and effective use.

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, consisting of a brief purpose statement and the technical endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Sync Company Vendor Insurances'), and the endpoint details are relevant. However, the endpoint string is lengthy and could be more streamlined, but it does not include unnecessary fluff.

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 three required parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'sync' means behaviorally, expected outcomes, error conditions, or how it differs from similar tools. For a mutation tool with no structured safety or output information, 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the input schema (e.g., 'company_id' as a unique identifier). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as explaining the 'updates' array structure or format. Since the schema already documents parameters adequately, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though no extra value is added.

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 Vendor Insurances' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it a tautology. It adds a technical endpoint '[Core/Directory] PATCH /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/vendors/{vendor_id}/insurances/sync', which clarifies the HTTP method and path but does not specify what 'sync' entails (e.g., updating, merging, or refreshing insurance data). This is vague and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'sync_company_insurances' or 'sync_project_vendor_insurances'.

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, such as when to choose this over other sync tools (e.g., 'sync_company_insurances'). Without any usage instructions, the agent lacks direction on appropriate invocation scenarios.

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