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 'Download all' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, how it handles pagination (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters but not explained), or what the output format is (e.g., file downloads vs. metadata). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 5 parameters.

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 a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose, with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficient, though it could be slightly more informative by integrating key parameter context 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 (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, output format, error conditions, or usage context. For a download operation with multiple IDs and pagination, more guidance is needed to help the agent invoke it correctly.

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 already documents all 5 parameters (company_id, communication_id, email_id, page, per_page). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the relationship between these IDs or how pagination works. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does 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 clearly states the action ('Download all') and resource ('company-level email attachments'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'download_all_email_attachments' by specifying 'company-level', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other attachment-related tools in the 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing specific email/communication IDs, or differentiate from other attachment download tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent without contextual usage instructions.

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