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 states 'Sync projects' and includes a PATCH method hint, implying a mutation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like what 'sync' entails (e.g., data overwriting, conflict resolution), permissions required, or side effects. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

While concise, the description is under-specified and not front-loaded with useful information. The single sentence 'Sync projects. [Core/Portfolio] PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/sync' includes redundant API details without clarifying the tool's purpose or usage, making it inefficient rather than appropriately concise.

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 'sync' does, the expected behavior, or the result format, leaving significant gaps for the agent to understand and invoke 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%, so the schema fully documents the three parameters (company_id, run_configurable_validations, updates). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the structure of 'updates' array. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 projects' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without specifying what 'sync' means in this context. It lacks a clear verb-resource combination and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'sync_budget_line_items' or 'sync_tasks', 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and with many sibling tools (e.g., 'sync_budget_line_items'), the agent has no indication of when this specific sync operation is appropriate.

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