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. 'Send invite' implies a mutation (sending an invitation), but it does not disclose critical traits such as required permissions (e.g., admin rights), whether it triggers email notifications, idempotency, or error conditions. The API path hint ('PATCH') suggests an update operation, but this is not explained. The description lacks behavioral context needed for safe invocation.

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 extremely concise ('Send invite. [Core/Directory] PATCH /rest/v1.3/companies/{company_id}/users/{id}/invite'), but this brevity leads to under-specification rather than efficiency. The API path hint adds some technical context, but the front-loaded purpose statement is vague. While not verbose, it fails to provide necessary information, making it minimally adequate but incomplete.

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 mutation nature (implied by 'Send' and PATCH method), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not cover behavioral aspects like side effects, success/failure responses, or prerequisites. For a tool that likely modifies system state (sending invites), this omission is significant, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

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 descriptions for both parameters ('company_id' and 'id'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, as it does not mention parameters at all. However, with high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately documents the inputs.

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_3' without adding clarity. It does not specify what kind of invite (e.g., user invitation, project access) or to what resource, making the purpose vague. While the API path hint ('companies/{company_id}/users/{id}/invite') suggests it sends an invite to a user within a company, this is not explicitly stated in the description itself.

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', 'send_invite_v1_1', and 'send_invite_v1_2', there is no indication of differences (e.g., versioning, parameters, or context). The absence of usage instructions leaves the agent without direction on selection criteria.

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