Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Send email' and includes an API path, but does not describe whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, or what happens upon invocation (e.g., does it trigger notifications, is it asynchronous?). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with no annotation coverage.

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 but inefficiently structured. It starts with 'Send email.' which is clear, but then appends a bracketed category and a full API path without explanation, adding clutter. While not verbose, the inclusion of technical details without context reduces clarity and front-loading effectiveness.

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's complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It lacks information on behavioral aspects, usage context, and expected outcomes. For a mutation tool that sends emails, more detail on effects, permissions, and error handling is needed to be complete.

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 7 parameters documented in the schema (e.g., project_id, id, subject, body, distribution_ids). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between 'id' and 'specification_section_revision_emails'. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation.

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. [Project Management/Specifications] POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/specification_section_revision_emails/{id}/send_email' is vague. It states the action ('Send email') but does not specify what resource or context it applies to beyond the API path, which is not explained in plain language. It restates the tool name and includes technical details without clarifying the purpose in a user-friendly way.

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 any prerequisites, constraints, or sibling tools that might be relevant for sending emails in different contexts (e.g., 'send_email_project_v1_0' is a sibling). This leaves the agent without direction on appropriate usage.

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