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. While 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or any rate limits. It mentions the HTTP method (POST) and endpoint path, but this is minimal context that doesn't adequately inform the agent 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 very concise with just one sentence that includes the action, resource, and endpoint details. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words. However, the inclusion of the endpoint path ('POST /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/email_communications') might be redundant if the agent already has structured API information, but it doesn't significantly detract from 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 that this is a creation/mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a successful creation returns, error conditions, or any side effects. The agent lacks crucial information to use this tool effectively, especially since the input includes complex nested objects ('communication' and 'email') that aren't elaborated upon beyond the schema.

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 what's already in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the structure of 'communication' or 'email' objects, valid values for 'topic_type', or relationships between parameters). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 states 'Create Company-level Email Communication' which clearly indicates the verb ('Create') and resource ('Company-level Email Communication'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'create_email_communication' or 'create_company_level_email', leaving ambiguity about what makes this specific tool unique.

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. With sibling tools like 'create_email_communication' and 'create_company_level_email' present, the agent receives no help in selecting the correct tool for a given scenario. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, constraints, or comparison with similar tools.

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