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 'PATCH /rest/v1.0/standard_cost_codes/sync', implying a mutation (PATCH), but does not disclose behavioral traits such as what 'sync' entails (e.g., overwrites, merges, requires permissions), potential side effects, or error handling. The description is insufficient 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?

The description is brief but under-specified—it consists of a tautological phrase, a domain hint, and an HTTP method. While not verbose, it fails to convey necessary information efficiently, making it less helpful. It is front-loaded but lacks substance.

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 (a mutation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'sync' does, the nature of 'updates', expected outcomes, or error conditions. For a tool that likely modifies cost codes, this leaves significant gaps for an 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 parameter descriptions (e.g., 'view' enum options, 'company_id', 'updates'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema adequately documents inputs. Baseline 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 Standard Cost Codes' restates the tool name and adds only a domain hint ('Construction Financials/Work Breakdown Structure') and HTTP method. It lacks a specific verb explaining what 'sync' means (e.g., update, reconcile, import) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'copy_from_standard_cost_code_list' or 'sync_cost_codes', 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and sibling tools include related operations like 'copy_from_standard_cost_code_list' without differentiation. This leaves the agent with no usage direction.

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