Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions 'PATCH', implying a mutation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like 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, which is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 and front-loaded with the tool name, but includes extraneous details like the HTTP method and endpoint path that may not aid the agent. It wastes no words, though it could be more informative rather than just 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 tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a description that lacks behavioral and usage details, it is incomplete. For a mutation tool with two parameters, the description should explain what 'sync' entails, potential side effects, and expected outcomes, but it does not.

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 'company_id' and 'updates' documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond this, such as explaining the structure of 'updates' or providing examples. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 Tax Codes. [Construction Financials/Tax] PATCH /rest/v1.0/tax_codes/sync' restates the tool name ('Sync Tax Codes') and adds only a category label and HTTP method, which is tautological. It does not specify what 'sync' means (e.g., update, reconcile, refresh) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'sync_tax_types' or 'create_tax_code', leaving the purpose vague beyond the name.

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 lacks context about prerequisites, triggers, or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., 'sync_tax_types', 'create_tax_code', 'list_tax_codes'), leaving the agent with no usage instructions.

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