Construction daily-log generation, jurisdiction compliance requirements, construction FAQs.
Scored across 3 tools
Each tool targets a distinct purpose: template creation, compliance requirements, and FAQ search. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (create_daily_log_template, get_logging_requirements, list_construction_faq).
Three tools is borderline for a logging server; it feels thin for a 'Pro' system but could be acceptable for a focused helper.
Core operations like actually creating, viewing, or editing log entries are missing, leaving significant gaps in the tool surface.
Generate a construction daily log template.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_type | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or requires authentication, leaving the agent uninformed about behavioral traits.
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 extremely concise but under-specified; while it earns its place, it could include more detail without becoming verbose.
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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description fails to cover the tool's behavior, parameter usage, or return value, leaving significant gaps.
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?
The parameter 'project_type' has no description in the schema, and the tool description does not mention it, providing no added meaning.
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 tool generates a construction daily log template, distinguishing it from siblings which handle requirements and FAQ queries.
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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives; lacks context about prerequisites or typical scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get daily log compliance requirements.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_type | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; the description is too brief to disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, return format, or side effects.
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 very short but not unnecessarily verbose. However, it sacrifices essential detail for brevity.
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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to explain what the requirements are, how to use the parameter, or what to expect in return.
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?
The single parameter 'project_type' has no description in the schema, and the tool description does not add any meaning or examples.
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 ('Get') and the resource ('daily log compliance requirements'). It distinguishes from sibling tools which involve creation or FAQs.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_daily_log_template or list_construction_faq.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search construction logging FAQ.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Search', failing to mention output format, empty query behavior, pagination, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a search tool.
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 only five words, which is extremely concise but at the expense of completeness. It is front-loaded but does not contain enough information to be useful.
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 single parameter and lack of output schema, the description should at least explain what the FAQ contains, how the query parameter works, and what the result looks like. It is completely inadequate.
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 0% for the single 'query' parameter. The description does not explain the parameter's meaning, format, or constraints (e.g., required, allowed wildcards). It fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.
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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'construction logging FAQ', clearly indicating the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools (create, get) by being a search/list variant, though no explicit differentiation is provided.
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 on when to use this tool versus siblings or alternatives. The description lacks context such as prerequisites, typical queries, or when search is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
create_daily_log_templateget_logging_requirementslist_construction_faqConstruction job costing: ask how a project is doing, capture receipts, record transactions.
Fresh US building permits with contacts from official city APIs. Construction lead generation.
Public building permits, property assessments, parcels and development intelligence.
Connects AI assistants to QCDatabase.AI for everyday construction quality-control work.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
