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 mentions 'POST /rest/v1.1/punch_items/send_unsent', implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it sends emails, triggers notifications, requires authentication, or has side effects. This leaves the agent guessing about the tool's impact.

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 sentences: one stating the purpose and category, and another providing the HTTP method and endpoint. It's front-loaded with the core action, though the category and endpoint details could be integrated more smoothly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'send' entails (e.g., email notifications), what happens after sending, or potential errors. For a tool that likely modifies system state, more behavioral context is needed for safe 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 the single parameter 'project_id' documented as 'ID of the Project'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what 'unsent' means or how the project ID is used. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 clearly states the action ('Send unsent Punch Items') and resource ('Punch Items'), with the category '[Project Management/Punch List]' providing context. It distinguishes from siblings like 'send_punch_item_email' by focusing on unsent items in bulk, though it doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'send_punch_item_email' or 'send_all_unsent_punch_item_emails' is provided. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether unsent items exist or if the user needs specific permissions.

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