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 'Create Email' and a URL path, failing to describe that this is a write operation (POST), what permissions are required, whether it sends an email or creates a record, or any side effects like notifications. The description lacks essential behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise with just the tool name and a URL path, which is front-loaded but under-specified. While it avoids waste, it sacrifices clarity for brevity. The structure is minimal, but the single line could be more informative without losing 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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the purpose, usage, behavior, or output, leaving critical gaps. For a tool that likely creates email records in a project management system, this minimal description fails to provide necessary context for effective 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 all parameters documented in the schema (e.g., project_id, communication_id, email object). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, not explaining relationships like how topic_type and topic_id associate the email. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though no extra value is added.

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 Email' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It does not clarify what resource is being created (e.g., an email record in a project communication context) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'create_email_communication' or 'create_company_level_email'. The description lacks a clear verb-resource pairing beyond the name.

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 (e.g., needing a project and communication ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'create_email_communication'. Without any usage context, 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.