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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Close and Distribute', implying a state change and notification action, but doesn't describe what 'close' entails (e.g., finalizing, archiving), what 'distribute' involves (e.g., sending to recipients, notifications), or any side effects like permissions required, irreversible changes, or rate limits. The HTTP method 'PATCH' suggests a partial update, but this isn't elaborated.

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 core action. It includes the category and HTTP method efficiently. However, the inclusion of the API endpoint 'PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/submittal_logs/{id}/close_and_distribute' is somewhat redundant with the tool name and could be considered extraneous, though it provides technical context.

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 (a mutation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, expected outcomes, error conditions, and how the distribution works. For a tool that likely changes state and sends notifications, more context is needed to guide an 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 8 parameters with basic descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the purpose of 'submittal_log_status_id', 'message', or how 'recipient_ids' are used in distribution). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate further.

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 ('Close and Distribute') and resource ('a Submittal Log'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It includes a category tag '[Project Management/Submittals]' and the HTTP method 'PATCH', which helps clarify the operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools (like other submittal-related tools), keeping it from a perfect score.

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. There are many sibling tools related to submittals (e.g., 'create_submittal', 'update_submittal', 'list_submittals'), but the description doesn't mention any prerequisites, conditions, or comparisons. Usage is implied only by the tool name and HTTP method.

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