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' (implying a write/mutation operation) but does not clarify permissions needed, side effects (e.g., notifications triggered), or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It includes the API endpoint path, which adds technical context without unnecessary verbosity, though the endpoint detail might be more than needed for an AI agent.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'unsent' means, how items are selected, what the send operation entails (e.g., email notifications), or what the response looks like. 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'project_id' documented as 'Unique identifier for the project.' The description adds no additional parameter context beyond the schema, such as what happens if unsent items exist across multiple projects. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents parameters.

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 Task Items') and the resource ('Task Items'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'send_unsent_observation_items' or 'send_unsent_punch_items', which follow a similar pattern but target different resources, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.

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., unsent items must exist), exclusions, or related tools for sending other types of items, leaving the agent without contextual usage instructions.

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