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 'Export' and includes a GET endpoint, implying a read-only operation that retrieves data, but doesn't clarify if this is a safe read, what format the export is in (e.g., CSV, PDF), whether it's paginated, or any rate limits. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the name.

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 two sentences, but the second sentence is a technical endpoint detail that doesn't add user-facing value. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, but includes extraneous information like '[Project Management/Emails]' and the GET path, which could be omitted for better clarity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the export returns (e.g., file format, content structure), any side effects, or error conditions. For a tool with four parameters and likely complex output, this lack of context makes it inadequate for an agent to use effectively without additional assumptions.

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 all four parameters (company_id, id, page, per_page). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between company_id and id or the export format. However, with high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately documents the inputs.

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 ('Export') and resource ('Company-level Email Communication'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'export_email_communication_to_pdf' or 'download_all_company_level_email_attachments', which appear to handle similar data exports but in different formats or scopes.

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 '[Project Management/Emails]' and a GET endpoint, but these are technical details, not usage instructions. There's no indication of prerequisites, context, or comparison with sibling tools that might handle email exports differently.

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