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 URL, implying a mutation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it overwrites data, merges updates, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. For a tool with 'updates' as an array parameter, this lack of detail is a significant gap.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core action, but it includes extraneous details like '[Construction Financials/Direct Costs]' and the API endpoint 'PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/direct_costs/line_items/sync', which are redundant for tool selection. While concise, it could be more focused on user guidance rather than technical implementation.

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 mutation tool with an array parameter ('updates'), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain what 'sync' entails, the expected format of updates, potential outcomes, or error handling. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool 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 parameters 'project_id' and 'updates' documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about these parameters, such as the structure of 'updates' or examples of sync operations. However, since the schema covers the basics, a 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 states the action ('Sync') and resource ('Direct Cost Line Items'), which provides a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'sync' means in this context (e.g., update, reconcile, or batch modify) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'sync_direct_cost_items' or 'update_direct_cost_line_item', leaving ambiguity.

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 (e.g., after changes to direct costs), or exclusions, which is critical for a mutation tool like this. Sibling tools include similar 'sync' and 'update' operations, but no differentiation is offered.

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