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 for behavioral disclosure. The description mentions 'PATCH' which implies a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, what happens to existing data, whether changes are reversible, or any rate limits. For a bulk mutation tool with 19 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in 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 technically concise but poorly structured. It repeats the tool name, adds a category tag '[Project Management/Daily Log]' which doesn't add value, and includes the API endpoint path which is implementation detail rather than functional description. The information isn't front-loaded with clear purpose, making it inefficient despite its 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?

Given the complexity (19 parameters, bulk mutation operation, no annotations, no output schema), the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain what constitutes a successful update, what format the update data should be in, whether all log types must be provided, or what happens with partial failures. For such a complex tool, the description provides minimal contextual guidance.

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 each parameter having a basic description like 'Array of Update Data for Log Type'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. While the schema covers the basics, the description doesn't explain the structure of the update data arrays or provide examples, leaving significant ambiguity for a tool with 19 complex array parameters.

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 'Bulk Updates for Daily Logs' which indicates a bulk update operation on daily logs, providing a basic verb+resource combination. However, it's vague about what specific daily logs are being updated and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like other bulk_update_* tools. The inclusion of the API endpoint path adds technical detail but doesn't clarify the functional purpose.

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. With many sibling tools including other bulk update operations and individual daily log update tools (like update_daily_construction_report_log), there's no indication of when this bulk approach is preferred or what prerequisites exist. The description lacks any when/when-not context.

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