Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Sync Units of Measure' and includes an endpoint, but fails to describe critical behaviors: it uses PATCH (implying partial updates), involves 'sync' (suggesting batch operations with updates and deletes), but does not explain what synchronization entails (e.g., merging data, handling conflicts), permissions required, side effects, or error handling. The description is insufficient for a mutation tool with no 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 concise with two parts: a tautological phrase and an endpoint. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The endpoint inclusion is useful but not front-loaded with actionable context. While brief, it lacks the structured clarity needed for effective tool selection, making it mediocre in conciseness.

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 batch updates and deletes, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not cover the tool's behavior, output format, error conditions, or how it differs from related tools. For a mutation tool with three parameters and significant operational implications, the description fails to provide adequate context for safe and correct 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 'company_id', 'updates', and 'deletes' documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema—it does not explain the structure of 'updates' or 'deletes' arrays, their expected formats, or examples. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but the description misses an opportunity to clarify the sync operation's data requirements.

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 Units of Measure' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It includes a category '[Construction Financials/Units of Measure]' and an endpoint 'PATCH /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/uoms/sync', but these do not explain what the tool actually does (e.g., synchronize units of measure between systems, update a master list). It lacks a specific verb and resource context, making 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or sibling tools (e.g., 'create_unit_of_measure', 'list_units_of_measure', 'get_units_of_measure', 'update_unit_of_measure', 'delete_unit_of_measure', or other sync tools like 'sync_budget_line_items'). Without any usage instructions, the agent cannot determine appropriate scenarios for invocation.

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