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 mentions 'Email' and a POST endpoint, implying a write operation that sends an email, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is idempotent, what permissions are required, if it triggers notifications, or what the email contains. The description lacks details on side effects, error conditions, or response format, leaving significant gaps 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 concise with a single sentence stating the action, followed by category and endpoint details. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the inclusion of the endpoint might be redundant if the agent already has structured API data, and it could be more structured by separating functional description from technical metadata.

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 mutation tool (emailing a time entry) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the email does (e.g., sends to default recipients, includes entry details), what the response looks like, or any error handling. For a tool that likely involves side effects and permissions, this leaves the agent under-informed.

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 clear descriptions for 'project_id' and 'id' parameters. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain the relationship between the entry and project). Since the schema fully documents the parameters, 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 the action ('Email a Time And Material Entry') and resource ('Time And Material Entry'), which is clear. However, it doesn't specify what 'email' entails (e.g., send to specific recipients, include attachments) or differentiate from sibling tools, making it somewhat vague. The inclusion of the category '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' and endpoint 'POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/time_and_material_entries/{id}/email_entry' adds technical context but doesn't fully clarify the purpose beyond the basic verb.

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 (e.g., needing an existing Time and Material Entry), target recipients, or any context for emailing. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'create_a_new_time_and_material_entry', 'show_time_and_material_entry'), there's no indication of how this fits into workflows, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.

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