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 a POST request, implying a write operation, but does not mention required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified 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 and front-loaded with the core action. It includes the HTTP method and endpoint path, which is useful but could be considered extraneous if the agent already has structured API data. No wasted sentences, though it could be more polished without the bracketed category.

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 tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain the expected outcome (e.g., email sent confirmation, error handling), required permissions, or side effects. For a mutation tool with significant complexity, this leaves too many gaps for the agent to operate effectively.

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 all parameters documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between 'distribution_ids' arrays or format expectations for 'subject' and 'body'. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 Checklist (Inspection) Email') and the resource ('Checklist (Inspection)'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'send_email_project' or 'send_observation_item_email', which could be used for similar email-sending purposes in different contexts.

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 category '[Project Management/Inspections]' but does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to other email-sending tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent without contextual usage instructions.

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