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 Cost Codes' with a PATCH method, implying a mutation operation that updates or synchronizes data. However, it lacks critical behavioral details: what 'sync' means (e.g., merging, overwriting, incremental updates), permissions required, side effects, error handling, or rate limits. The description is too vague to inform safe or 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 and front-loaded with the core action ('Sync Cost Codes'), followed by category and HTTP method. It wastes no words, though it could be more informative. The structure is efficient, but the brevity contributes to underspecification rather than clarity.

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 synchronization tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain what 'sync' entails, the format or purpose of the 'updates' array, or the expected outcome. For a mutation tool without structured safety or output information, this leaves significant gaps for an AI 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 parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'project_id' as 'Unique identifier for the project'). The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond implying synchronization involves 'updates'. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 Cost Codes' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal additional context. It mentions the resource ('Cost Codes') and includes a category '[Construction Financials/Work Breakdown Structure]' and HTTP method 'PATCH', but lacks a specific verb or clear action beyond 'Sync'. This provides some domain context but fails to distinguish what syncing entails or how it differs from siblings like 'sync_standard_cost_codes' or 'sync_budget_line_items'.

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, constraints, or sibling tools (e.g., 'sync_standard_cost_codes', 'copy_from_standard_cost_code_list'), leaving the agent with no usage context. The inclusion of a category and HTTP method does not substitute for actionable guidelines.

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