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 the action ('Download') but does not describe whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what the output format is (e.g., file downloads, pagination behavior), or any rate limits. The mention of pagination parameters in the schema suggests behavioral details that are not explained in the description.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence provides the API endpoint path, which adds context but could be considered extraneous for an AI agent. Overall, it is efficiently structured with minimal waste.

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 lacks details on behavioral aspects like output format (e.g., whether it returns file data or links), error handling, or usage constraints. The schema covers parameter basics, but the description does not compensate for missing behavioral and output information, making it inadequate for full contextual understanding.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all parameters (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project.'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between project_id, communication_id, and email_id, or how pagination works. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's purpose clearly: 'Download all email attachments.' It specifies the verb ('Download') and resource ('email attachments'), but it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'download_all_company_level_email_attachments' or other email-related tools, leaving ambiguity about its specific scope or differentiation.

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 mentions the API endpoint path, which implies context for email communications within a project, but does not explicitly state prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or compare it to other attachment-related tools in the sibling list.

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