Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Send Urgent Error' implies a write/notification operation, but the description doesn't disclose critical behaviors: whether this triggers alerts/notifications, requires admin permissions (suggested by '[Company Admin/Company Settings]'), has rate limits, or what happens after sending. The POST method hint is minimal behavioral 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 under-specified rather than concise. It wastes space on API path details that don't enhance understanding while omitting essential context. A single sentence could be efficient if it contained meaningful information, but here it's incomplete.

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, no output schema, and a mutation tool (POST) with potential side effects, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's role in error handling, expected outcomes, or system impact. For an 'urgent error' tool, this lack of context is significant.

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 schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema. The baseline is 3 because the schema adequately documents parameters, though the description doesn't compensate for any gaps (none exist).

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 Urgent Error' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It lacks a specific verb-resource combination and doesn't explain what 'urgent error' means in this context (e.g., what system receives it, what triggers it). The API path provides some context but isn't integrated into a meaningful description.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or sibling tool relationships. Given the many sibling tools (like various logging/notification tools), this absence is particularly problematic.

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