Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'PATCH /rest/v1.0/potential_change_orders/sync', implying a mutation operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it's idempotent, what permissions are required, if it's destructive, or how errors are handled. The description adds minimal context beyond the HTTP method.

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 (one sentence) but under-specified. It front-loads the tool name but wastes characters on tautological repetition and HTTP details without explaining the action. While not verbose, it lacks essential information, making it inefficient in conveying purpose.

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 3 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'sync' entails, what the 'updates' array contains, or what the tool returns. For a PATCH operation in a financial/change order context, more guidance is needed to ensure correct usage.

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 semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description fails to clarify the structure or purpose of the 'updates' array.

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 Potential Change Orders' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It mentions the domain '[Construction Financials/Change Orders]' and HTTP method 'PATCH', but fails to specify what 'sync' means operationally (e.g., update, reconcile, refresh). No verb+resource distinction is made from sibling tools like 'sync_potential_change_order_line_items' or 'create_potential_change_order'.

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. With many sibling tools related to change orders (e.g., 'create_potential_change_order', 'update_potential_change_order'), the agent is left guessing about appropriate usage scenarios.

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