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 states the action is to 'send email', implying a mutation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it triggers notifications, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This is a significant gap 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 a single sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core action. However, it includes an API path fragment '[Core/Documents] POST /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/files/{id}/send_email' which is slightly redundant but not overly verbose.

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 is a mutation (sending email) with no annotations, no output schema, and 7 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on expected outcomes, error handling, and behavioral context, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by 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%, so the schema documents all parameters (e.g., company_id, id, subject, body, distribution_ids). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the relationship between the file ID and email recipients. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 'Send email for file sharing' states the action (send email) and resource (file sharing), which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'file sharing' entails (e.g., sharing a specific file via email) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'send_email_project', making it vague in context.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after uploading a file), or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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