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 states 'Create Call Log' implying a write operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or the format of the response. The mention of 'POST' and the endpoint adds minimal technical context but lacks operational details.

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: the action and the endpoint. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be more structured (e.g., separating purpose from technical details). The brevity is efficient, but the content is under-specified rather than optimally 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 (a creation tool with nested objects and attachments), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what a 'call log' is, what data it holds, how attachments are handled, or what the response contains. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's full context and usage.

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 'project_id' and 'attachments', though 'call_log' has a minimal description. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain what fields 'call_log' should contain or the purpose of attachments). Given the high schema coverage, 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 Call Log. [Project Management/Daily Log] POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/call_logs' restates the tool name ('Create Call Log') and adds minimal context (category and endpoint). It lacks a specific verb-resource combination that explains what a 'call log' is or what creation entails, making it vague and not clearly differentiated from sibling tools like 'create_daily_construction_report_log' or 'create_work_log'.

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 does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., within a project), or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., other log-creation tools). This leaves the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios.

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