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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'PATCH', implying a mutation operation, but doesn't specify whether this is destructive, requires permissions, has side effects, or involves rate limits. The 'Legacy' tag hints at deprecation but isn't explained. This leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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 no wasted words, consisting of a brief phrase and technical details. However, it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative—it could be more front-loaded with purpose. Still, it's structurally clean and to the point.

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 2 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'sync' entails (e.g., bidirectional updates, conflict resolution), the format of 'updates', or the expected outcome. For a mutation tool with no structured support, this leaves too many gaps for effective agent use.

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 parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. According to scoring rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description.

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 ToDos' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It mentions 'Project Management/Schedule (Legacy)' and 'PATCH /rest/v1.0/todos/sync', which provide some technical details but don't clearly explain what the tool does (e.g., what 'sync' means operationally). It lacks a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools.

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 are no guidelines on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Given the many sibling tools (e.g., 'create_todo', 'update_todo', 'sync_tasks'), the absence of usage differentiation is a significant gap.

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