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 states 'Create a project logo' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it overwrites existing logos, rate limits, or response format. The mention of 'POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{id}/logo' hints at an HTTP method but adds minimal practical 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 concise with two parts: a brief purpose statement and an API endpoint reference. It's front-loaded with the core action. However, the endpoint detail is somewhat redundant and could be integrated more smoothly, though it doesn't waste space.

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 of a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain critical aspects like what the tool returns (e.g., success status, logo URL), error conditions, or dependencies on upload processes. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 (e.g., 'id' as project identifier, 'upload_uuid' referencing a completed upload). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as 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 'Create a project logo' clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('project logo'), but it's vague about what 'create' entails (e.g., uploading an image, generating a design). It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'update_companys_logo' or 'delete_the_project_logo', which are related but not directly named as alternatives.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing a pre-uploaded file via UUID), exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'update_companys_logo' or 'delete_the_project_logo'. This leaves 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.