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 of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Sync' and includes a PATCH method hint, implying a mutation operation, but fails to describe what the sync does (e.g., overwrites, merges, updates from a source), potential side effects, permissions required, or error conditions. The description is too minimal to inform the agent adequately about behavioral traits.

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 brief purpose statement and an API endpoint reference. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise; the purpose statement lacks necessary detail, and the endpoint reference may not be useful to an AI agent. It is front-loaded but does not earn its place with meaningful content.

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 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how the sync behaves, or any dependencies. For a mutation tool without structured support, this description leaves significant gaps in understanding for the agent.

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 'vendor_id', though 'updates' is vaguely described as 'updates'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as explaining the structure or purpose of the 'updates' array. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 Vendor Insurances' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It lacks a specific verb or explanation of what 'sync' entails (e.g., update, reconcile, refresh). While it mentions the resource ('Project Vendor Insurances'), it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like 'sync_company_vendor_insurances' or 'sync_project_insurances', leaving the purpose vague.

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, nor does it reference any sibling tools (e.g., other sync or insurance-related tools). This absence leaves the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios.

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