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 is 'Send All Unsent Punch Item Emails' via POST, implying a write operation that triggers email sending, but it does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this is idempotent, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, what happens on failure, or the expected output format. The description lacks sufficient detail for safe and effective use.

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, efficient sentence that includes the tool name, category, and HTTP method. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly improved by integrating the parameter context or usage hints without sacrificing brevity.

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 tool that sends emails (a mutation with potential side-effects), the description is incomplete. No annotations exist to cover safety or behavioral aspects, and there is no output schema to describe return values. The description does not compensate for these gaps—it lacks information on success/failure responses, error handling, or any confirmation of what 'unsent' means operationally. This leaves significant uncertainty for an agent.

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 parameters: 'project_id' as a unique identifier, 'punch_ids' as an array (though its items are unspecified), and 'recipient' as an enum with roles 'assignee' and 'manager'. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, but the schema itself is well-documented, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 ('Send All Unsent Punch Item Emails') and resource ('Punch Item Emails'), making the purpose explicit. It includes the category '[Project Management/Punch List]' and HTTP method 'POST', which adds context. However, it does not distinguish this tool from its sibling 'send_all_unsent_punch_item_emails_v1_1', which appears to be a versioned alternative, so it misses full sibling 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 does not mention the sibling tool 'send_all_unsent_punch_item_emails_v1_1' or explain any differences in context, versioning, or functionality. There is no indication of prerequisites, constraints, or when-not-to-use scenarios, leaving usage entirely implicit.

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