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. 'Send invite' implies a mutation operation (sending), but it lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., email notifications), rate limits, or error conditions. The HTTP method 'PATCH' hints at partial updates, but this is not explained. The description is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero 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 concise with 'Send invite.', but the appended API path '[Core/Directory] PATCH /rest/v1.1/companies/{company_id}/users/{id}/invite' adds technical detail that may not be front-loaded or user-friendly. While brief, it could be more structured to prioritize actionable information over implementation specifics.

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 mutation tool (sending invites) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain what the invite entails, expected outcomes, error handling, or prerequisites. The API path provides some context but does not compensate for the lack of behavioral and usage details needed for effective tool invocation.

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 clear parameter descriptions for 'company_id' and 'id'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3 when no param info is 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 restates the tool name 'send_invite_v1_1' without adding meaningful specificity. It does not clarify what resource the invite is for (e.g., user, project) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'send_invite_v1_2' or 'send_invite_v1_3', leaving the purpose vague.

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. There are sibling tools with similar names (e.g., 'send_invite_v1_2', 'send_invite_v1_3'), but no indication of differences in context, version, or use cases. This absence of guidance makes it misleading for an AI agent.

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