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 indicates a GET operation, implying read-only behavior, but does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (though parameters exist), error conditions, or what 'show' entails (e.g., full email content, attachments). The description is minimal and lacks behavioral details needed for safe invocation.

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 with the tool name and endpoint, avoiding unnecessary words. However, it could be more structured by separating purpose from technical details. It efficiently conveys the core information in one line, though it lacks completeness for a tool with no annotations.

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 (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return values (e.g., email details, attachments), error handling, or behavioral traits. For a tool that likely returns structured email data, the description fails to provide enough context for an agent to understand what to expect upon invocation.

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 parameter semantics beyond the endpoint path (project_id, id) and mentions pagination parameters indirectly via the endpoint. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but doesn't 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 states the tool's purpose as 'Show Email Communication' and includes the HTTP method and endpoint, which clarifies it's a GET operation to retrieve email communication data. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., list_emails, list_company_level_email_communication) or specify what exactly is shown (e.g., metadata, content, attachments). The purpose is clear but lacks specificity and sibling differentiation.

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., project context), exclusions, or compare with sibling tools like list_emails or show_company_level_email_communication. Usage is implied only by the endpoint structure, but explicit context is missing.

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