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 'sync' and a PATCH operation, implying a mutation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as what 'sync' entails (e.g., merging, updating, overwriting), whether it requires specific permissions, or if it has side effects like rate limits or data destruction. The description is too vague to inform the agent adequately.

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 two parts: a tautological phrase and a technical endpoint reference. While it avoids unnecessary length, it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The structure is front-loaded but lacks substantive content, making it minimally adequate but not helpful.

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 implied by a 'sync' operation with an 'updates' array, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool does, how it behaves, or what it returns. For a mutation tool with potential side effects, this leaves significant gaps for the agent to understand its use.

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 descriptions for 'project_id' and 'updates'. The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the structure or purpose of the 'updates' array. However, since the schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as 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 'Sync Project Insurances' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It lacks a specific verb and resource definition, and does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'sync_company_insurances' or 'sync_project_vendor_insurances'. The inclusion of '[Core/Directory] PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/insurances/sync' provides technical context but does not explain what 'sync' means in this context.

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 any sibling tools that might be related (e.g., other sync or insurance tools). There is no indication of when this tool is appropriate or what scenarios it addresses.

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