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 Accident Log' and includes an API endpoint, implying a write operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, error handling, or response format. The mention of 'POST' hints at creation but lacks details on side effects or constraints.

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 main action ('Create Accident Log'), followed by category and API endpoint. It wastes no words, though the category and endpoint could be considered extraneous if not needed for clarity. Overall, it is efficiently structured in a single sentence.

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 lacks information on what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral expectations. While the schema covers inputs, the absence of output details and minimal behavioral disclosure makes it insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's operation.

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 descriptions for parameters like 'project_id' and 'attachments'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since the schema is well-documented, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate. It does not compensate with extra context, but the schema suffices for understanding inputs.

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 action ('Create Accident Log') and resource ('Accident Log'), which clarifies the purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., 'create_daily_construction_report_log', 'create_delay_log'), which are also log-creation tools in the same category, making it vague in comparison. The inclusion of '[Project Management/Daily Log]' and the API endpoint adds some context but does not fully specify uniqueness.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions the category '[Project Management/Daily Log]', which implies a context but does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or direct alternatives among the many sibling tools (e.g., other log types). This leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.

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