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 a GET endpoint, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or pagination behavior (implied by page/per_page parameters). This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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, stating the purpose in the first phrase. However, it includes redundant technical details (e.g., '[Project Management/Emails] GET /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/email_communications/{id}') that could be omitted for better clarity, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., email communication details), how pagination works, or any error conditions. For a tool with this complexity, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters (company_id, id, page, per_page). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the relationship between company_id and id or clarifying pagination defaults. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 states the tool shows company-level email communication, which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'show_email_communication' or 'list_of_company_level_emails', leaving ambiguity about its specific scope or uniqueness.

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 lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a specific communication ID, and does not mention sibling tools for comparison, 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.