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 fails to describe whether this is a read-only or mutating operation (though 'PATCH' suggests mutation), what permissions are required, whether it sends emails, what happens on success/failure, or any side effects. The description is essentially non-existent for behavioral transparency.

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?

While brief, the description is under-specified rather than concise. The two-part structure (vague phrase + API path) doesn't effectively communicate the tool's purpose. The API path, while informative for developers, doesn't compensate for the lack of a clear, front-loaded explanation of what the tool does.

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 an invite-sending operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what an 'invite' entails, what the expected outcome is, or any error conditions. For a mutation tool with potential side effects (like email notifications), this lack of context is a critical gap.

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 both parameters (company_id and id) clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies 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 invite' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It lacks specificity about what kind of invite is being sent (e.g., user invitation, project access) and to whom. The inclusion of the API path '[Core/Directory] PATCH /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/users/{id}/invite' adds technical context but doesn't clarify the business purpose in plain language.

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. With sibling tools like 'send_invite_v1_1', 'send_invite_v1_2', and 'send_invite_v1_3' present, there's no indication of how this base version differs from those versioned variants. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions are mentioned.

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