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 mentions 'Send email' and a POST endpoint, implying a write operation that likely sends an email, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on failure. The description is minimal and lacks crucial operational details 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 with two parts: 'Send email' and the URL path. It's front-loaded with the action, and the URL provides technical context without unnecessary detail. However, it could be more structured by explicitly stating the purpose rather than embedding it in the URL.

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 7-parameter email-sending tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, error conditions, or behavioral aspects. For a mutation tool with significant parameters, this minimal description leaves gaps in understanding how to use it 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 (e.g., project_id, id, subject, body, distribution_ids). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description, which fits here.

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' states the basic action but is vague. It adds context with '[Project Management/Drawings] POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/drawing_revision_emails/{id}/send_email', which specifies the resource (drawing revision emails) and HTTP method, but doesn't clearly distinguish from sibling tools like 'send_email_project' or 'send_email_for_file_sharing'. It's more specific than a tautology but lacks clear 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description includes a URL path hinting it's for sending emails related to drawing revisions in projects, but it doesn't explicitly state this purpose, prerequisites, or exclusions. Without clear usage context, the agent must infer from the path alone.

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