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. It states 'Send unsent Observation Items' which implies a write/mutation operation (likely sending notifications or updates), but does not disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, side effects (e.g., marking items as sent), rate limits, or what 'send' entails (e.g., email, internal notification). The description is minimal and lacks necessary context 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 concise with two parts: a brief purpose statement and an endpoint reference. However, it is not front-loaded with critical usage information, and the endpoint detail may be redundant if the agent already has API context. It avoids waste but could be more structured to prioritize agent needs.

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'), lack of annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, this is incomplete. The description does not cover what 'unsent' means, what happens after sending, error conditions, or response format. For a tool that likely changes state, more context is needed for safe and effective 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?

The input schema has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage ('project_id' described as 'ID of the Project'). The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, as it does not mention parameters at all. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema adequately documents the parameter without additional insight 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 clearly states the action ('Send unsent Observation Items') and the resource ('Observation Items'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools, as there are no obvious direct siblings for sending unsent observation items in the provided list, but it lacks explicit distinction from other observation-related tools.

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 mentions the context '[Project Management/Observations]' and the endpoint, but does not specify prerequisites, conditions for use, or what 'unsent' means in practice. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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