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 states the action is 'Send Punch Item Email' via a POST endpoint, implying a write operation that likely sends an email, but it does not disclose critical traits like required permissions, side effects (e.g., email delivery, logging), rate limits, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps 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 and front-loaded with the core action, though it includes extraneous endpoint details that may not aid the agent. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, but the tautological nature limits its effectiveness despite efficient structure.

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 6-parameter email-sending tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain the tool's behavior, expected outcomes, or error conditions, leaving the agent under-informed for proper invocation in a project management context.

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 input schema (e.g., 'id', 'subject', 'body', distribution arrays). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 Punch Item Email' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It mentions the category '[Project Management/Punch List]' and endpoint 'POST /rest/v1.0/punch_items/{id}/send_email', which provides some context but lacks a specific verb-resource distinction or differentiation from sibling tools like 'send_punch_item_email_v1_1'.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage instructions beyond the basic action implied by the name.

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