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 implies a mutation ('sync' via PATCH) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it overwrites data, idempotency, rate limits, or side effects. The endpoint hint suggests a batch update, but this is not explicitly stated, leaving critical behavioral details unclear.

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 purpose restatement and endpoint details. However, it is not front-loaded with actionable information; the endpoint is less helpful than a clear usage explanation. It avoids waste but under-specifies, making it moderately structured yet insufficiently informative.

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 tool's complexity (a mutation with batch updates), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'sync' entails, expected outcomes, error handling, or how it differs from other sync tools. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's full context and behavior.

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 parameters 'project_id' and 'updates' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional param semantics beyond the endpoint hint, which implies batch updates. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though no extra value is provided.

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 Purchase Order Contracts' restates the tool name without adding specificity. It includes a category '[Construction Financials/Commitments]' and endpoint 'PATCH /rest/v1.0/purchase_order_contracts/sync', but lacks a clear verb+resource explanation (e.g., what 'sync' means operationally). It does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'sync_purchase_order_contract_line_items' or 'create_purchase_order_contract', leaving 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after updates), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'update_purchase_order_contract' or 'sync_purchase_order_contract_line_items'. This absence leaves the agent without usage direction.

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