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. It states 'Create' (implying a write/mutation operation) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it sends an actual email or just logs a record, idempotency, or error handling. The HTTP method (POST) is mentioned, but this is structural rather than behavioral context.

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 but under-specified—it's a single sentence that repeats the name and adds an endpoint path. While not verbose, it fails to convey essential information efficiently. The structure is front-loaded but lacks substance, making it less helpful than a more informative 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 (5 required parameters including nested objects), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, its side effects, or how it integrates with the project context. For a creation tool with significant input requirements, more context is needed for the agent to use it effectively.

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%, so the schema documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't clarify the structure of 'communication' or 'email' objects). However, the baseline is 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description doesn't detract from it.

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 Communication' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It mentions the resource ('Email Communication') but lacks details about what exactly gets created (e.g., an email record, notification, or thread) and how it differs from similar tools like 'create_email' or 'create_company_level_email_communication' in the sibling list.

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-specific vs. company-level), or any exclusions. With many sibling tools related to email and communication, this omission leaves the agent without direction.

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