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', implying a mutation operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's idempotent, what permissions are required, if it's destructive, or what happens on failure. The description adds minimal context beyond the HTTP method, leaving critical behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 but under-specified. It includes the tool name, domain context, and HTTP method in a single line, which is efficient. However, it lacks essential details about purpose and usage, making it feel incomplete rather than optimally concise. The structure is front-loaded but 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 complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'sync' entails, the expected behavior, or the return format. For a PATCH operation with an 'updates' array, more context is needed to guide effective use, making this description inadequate for the tool's likely complexity.

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 meaning beyond the schema (e.g., format of 'updates' array, example payloads). Since the schema adequately documents parameters, 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 Sub Jobs. [Construction Financials/Work Breakdown Structure] PATCH /rest/v1.0/sub_jobs/sync' is vague. It restates the tool name ('Sync Sub Jobs') and adds domain context and an HTTP method, but does not specify what 'sync' means (e.g., synchronize data between systems, update statuses, reconcile changes). It lacks a clear verb+resource action, making it difficult to distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_sub_job' or 'update_sub_job'.

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, conditions for use, or any sibling tools that might be related (e.g., 'create_sub_job', 'update_sub_job', 'list_sub_jobs'). Without this, an agent cannot determine appropriate usage scenarios.

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