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 states 'Send Punch Item Email' and includes a POST endpoint, implying a write operation that sends an email. However, it fails to describe critical behaviors: whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, if it triggers notifications, or what happens on failure. The description is minimal and lacks necessary operational context.

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 no wasted words, consisting of a brief purpose statement, category, and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it is overly terse, bordering on under-specification, which slightly reduces 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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the email-sending behavior, expected outcomes, error handling, or how distribution IDs are used. For a mutation tool with significant parameters, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 in the input schema (e.g., 'ID of the Punch Item', 'Email Subject'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, which is appropriate here as the schema adequately documents parameters without extra help from the description.

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 merely restates the tool name. It lacks specificity about what the tool actually does (e.g., sends an email notification about a punch item to specified recipients). While it includes a category '[Project Management/Punch List]' and endpoint 'POST /rest/v1.1/punch_items/{id}/send_email', these do not clarify the purpose beyond the name.

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 (e.g., needing a punch item ID), exclusions, or related tools (e.g., other email-sending tools in the sibling list like 'send_email_project'). This leaves the agent without context for appropriate invocation.

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