Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'GET' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose pagination behavior (implied by page/per_page parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when communication_id doesn't exist. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the HTTP method.

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 and to the point with only two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides API context. No wasted words, though it could be more informative given the lack of other documentation.

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?

For a list operation with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what communication threads are, what data they contain, how pagination works, or what the response format looks like. The API endpoint reference is helpful but insufficient for agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. It mentions the API endpoint structure which implies communication_id is part of the path, but this is already clear from the parameter names and required status.

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 'List Communication Threads' which is a clear verb+resource combination, but it's generic and doesn't differentiate from other list tools. The [Project Management/Emails] tag adds some context but doesn't specify what communication threads are or their scope.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions the API endpoint but doesn't provide context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or when this would be preferred over other communication-related tools.

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