Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action 'Send' but does not clarify what 'send' entails (e.g., email notifications, system updates), potential side effects, permissions required, or rate limits. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified 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. It includes an API endpoint hint which, while slightly technical, is brief. No extraneous information is present, making it efficient, though it could be more structured for clarity.

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 as a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'send' means operationally, what happens to the punch items after sending, or what the response contains, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 the parameter 'project_id' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the operation is scoped to a project, which is already clear from the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 Punch Items') and resource ('Punch Items'), providing a specific verb and target. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on unsent items, but does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'send_all_unsent_punch_item_emails' or 'send_unsent_punch_items_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 lacks context about prerequisites, conditions for sending, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'send_all_unsent_punch_item_emails', leaving the agent without usage direction.

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