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 invite' without explaining what the invite does (e.g., triggers an email, requires permissions, or has side effects). This leaves critical behavioral aspects like mutation, auth needs, and outcomes unspecified, which is inadequate for a 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?

While concise, the description is under-specified and lacks structure. It includes an API endpoint path '[Core/Directory] PATCH /rest/v1.2/companies/{company_id}/users/{id}/invite' which is redundant and not helpful for an AI agent, wasting space that could be used for meaningful guidance.

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 (implied by 'Send') with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool does, its effects, or return values, leaving significant gaps for the agent to understand and use the tool correctly.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (company_id and id). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since the schema is fully documented, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden.

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 'send_invite_v1_2'. It lacks specificity about what resource is being invited (e.g., a user to a company) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'send_invite_v1_1' or 'send_invite_v1_3', leaving the agent unclear about the exact purpose.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and fails to differentiate from sibling invite tools, offering no usage instructions for the agent.

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