Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Sync company vendors' which implies a mutation operation (likely updating vendor data), but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it's idempotent, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or how it handles conflicts. The API path hint ('PATCH /rest/v1.0/vendors/sync') suggests a partial update, but this is not explained.

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 ('Sync company vendors. [Core/Directory] PATCH /rest/v1.0/vendors/sync') but under-specified. The first part is tautological, and the second part (API path) is technical detail that may not aid an AI agent. It is front-loaded but lacks substantive content.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool with 3 parameters, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what 'sync' entails, the expected input format for 'updates', the impact of 'run_configurable_validations', or what the tool returns. For a tool that likely modifies vendor data, this leaves critical gaps.

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 schema (e.g., 'company_id', 'updates', 'run_configurable_validations'). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 vendors' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'sync_company_vendors', providing no additional clarity. It does not specify what 'sync' means (e.g., update, reconcile, import) or what resource 'vendors' refers to, making the purpose vague. No distinction from sibling tools is provided.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Given the many sibling tools (e.g., 'create_company_vendor', 'update_company_vendor'), the lack of differentiation is a significant gap.

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