Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Sync' implies a mutation operation (likely updating or aligning data), but the description doesn't clarify if this is destructive, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The inclusion of 'PATCH' in the description hints at an HTTP method but doesn't explain behavioral implications like idempotency or error handling.

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 core action ('Sync work order contracts'). The additional context '[Construction Financials/Commitments] PATCH /rest/v1.0/work_order_contracts/sync' is somewhat technical but not overly verbose. However, the inclusion of the API endpoint adds clutter without clear value for an AI agent.

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 (likely involving data alignment or batch updates), the description is inadequate. No annotations exist to clarify safety or behavior, and there's no output schema. The description fails to explain what 'sync' entails, expected outcomes, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool with two required parameters.

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 ('Unique identifier for the project', 'Updated Work order contracts'). The description adds no additional parameter context beyond the schema. Since the schema is well-documented, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 work order contracts' restates the tool name without adding specificity. It mentions '[Construction Financials/Commitments]' which provides some domain context, but lacks a clear verb+resource distinction (e.g., what 'sync' means operationally). Compared to sibling tools like 'create_work_order_contract' or 'update_work_order_contract', it doesn't differentiate itself beyond the generic term 'sync'.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after contract updates), or compare to siblings like 'sync_work_order_contract_line_items'. Without any usage instructions, an agent cannot determine appropriate invocation scenarios.

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