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' (implying a write operation) and includes an HTTP method (POST), which hints at mutation, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, error handling, or what the response contains. The description adds minimal value beyond the obvious.

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 brief (one sentence plus endpoint) and front-loaded with the core action. However, the inclusion of the endpoint path adds clutter without explanatory value for an AI agent, and the lack of any usage context makes it feel underspecified rather than efficiently concise.

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 (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'Project Equipment Log' is, what happens after creation, or any system constraints. For a mutation tool with no structured safety hints, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to operate safely.

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 fully documents all 8 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no examples, constraints, or relationships between parameters). This meets the baseline of 3 when 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 clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('Project Equipment Log'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the exact resource type, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like 'create_equipment_log_company' or 'create_equipment_log_project' from the sibling list.

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. It mentions the endpoint path ('POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/managed_equipment_logs') but offers no context about prerequisites, when this is appropriate, or what distinguishes it from other equipment log creation tools in the sibling list.

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