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 implies a mutation ('Sync' and 'PATCH'), suggesting it modifies data, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's idempotent, what happens on partial failures, if it requires specific permissions, or how it handles conflicts. The API path hints at batch updates via an array, but this isn't 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—two parts: a brief purpose statement and API details. It's front-loaded with the core action. However, the API path could be considered extraneous for an agent's decision-making, slightly reducing efficiency. Overall, it's compact with minimal waste.

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 three required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the sync behavior, expected input format for updates, potential side effects, or return values. For a mutation tool with significant implications, more context is needed to guide safe 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: prime_contract_id, project_id, and updates (array). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as the structure of updates items or synchronization logic. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the 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 'Sync Prime Contract Line Items' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It adds '[Construction Financials/Prime Contracts] PATCH /rest/v1.0/prime_contracts/{prime_contract_id}/line_items/sync', which provides API context but doesn't clearly explain what 'sync' means operationally (e.g., batch updates, data alignment). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on line items, but lacks specificity about the action.

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 sibling list includes many tools (e.g., create_prime_contract_line_item, update_prime_contract_line_item), but the description doesn't clarify when synchronization is preferred over individual operations. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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