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 states 'Create' which implies a write operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether it sends the email immediately, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The description is too sparse to inform the agent adequately about the tool's behavior.

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 consists of a brief phrase and an API endpoint, which is efficient but lacks necessary explanatory content. While it avoids verbosity, it fails to provide essential context, making it less helpful than a more informative yet still concise description would be.

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 (10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the tool's role in the broader system, expected outcomes, or error conditions. For a creation tool with many parameters, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively, especially without annotations or output schema to fill the gaps.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema. It does not explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how 'topic_type' and 'topic_id' relate to the email) or provide usage examples. However, with full schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 'Create Company-level Email' restates the tool name and adds minimal context. It specifies the verb 'Create' and resource 'Company-level Email' but lacks detail on what this entails (e.g., sending an email to company members). It does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_email' or 'create_email_communication', leaving ambiguity about its specific scope.

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 does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., project vs. company level), or exclusions. With many sibling tools related to emails and communications, the absence of usage guidelines makes it difficult for an agent to select this tool appropriately.

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