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 mentions 'PATCH' in the endpoint, implying a partial update/mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's idempotent, requires specific permissions, handles conflicts, or returns any output. The description 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 a single sentence, front-loading the action ('Sync Direct Cost Items') and including the API endpoint. There's no wasted text, though it could be more informative without losing brevity.

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 mutation (implied by PATCH), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'sync' entails, the expected input format for 'updates', or any behavioral aspects, making it inadequate for safe and correct tool invocation.

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 parameters 'project_id' and 'updates' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the structure of 'updates' array items. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 states the tool 'Sync Direct Cost Items' and provides the API endpoint, which indicates it performs a sync operation on direct cost items. However, it's vague about what 'sync' means—whether it's updating, creating, or merging data—and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'sync_direct_cost_line_items' or 'create_direct_cost_item', leaving ambiguity in its specific purpose.

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 lacks any mention of prerequisites, context (e.g., after data changes), or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'sync_direct_cost_line_items' or 'create_direct_cost_item', 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.