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 implies a read operation ('Show') and includes a GET method hint, but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, returns paginated data, or has rate limits. The mention of pagination parameters in the schema is not explained in the description, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 brief and front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by context and a URL pattern. It avoids unnecessary verbosity. However, it could be more structured by explicitly separating the purpose from the technical details, but it remains efficient with minimal waste.

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 tool with 5 parameters (including pagination) and no annotations or output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. The agent must infer too much from the schema alone, making the description incomplete for 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 clear parameter descriptions in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context about parameters beyond the URL pattern hint ('communications/{communication_id}/threads/{id}'), which aligns with the schema. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 'Show Communication Thread. [Project Management/Emails] GET /rest/v1.0/communications/{communication_id}/threads/{id}' restates the tool name ('Show Communication Thread') and adds minimal context with '[Project Management/Emails]' and a URL pattern. It does not specify what 'show' means (e.g., retrieve, display details) or what a 'communication thread' entails, making it vague. It fails to distinguish from siblings like 'show_communication' or 'list_communication_threads'.

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 does not mention prerequisites, context, or comparisons with sibling tools such as 'list_communication_threads' or 'show_communication'. This leaves the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios.

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