Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions 'POST' and includes an API path, implying a write operation, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the creation is idempotent, potential side effects (e.g., notifications), or error handling. The description is minimal and does not compensate for the lack of annotations.

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 but includes unnecessary API endpoint details ('POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/daily_construction_report_logs') that do not aid an AI agent in tool selection. It could be more front-loaded with actionable information. However, it avoids excessive verbosity.

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 (4 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It does not explain the expected output, error conditions, or provide examples. For a creation tool with significant input structure, more context is needed to guide effective 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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain the structure of 'daily_construction_report_log' object or typical use cases for 'run_configurable_validations'). 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 states the action ('Create') and resource ('Daily Construction Report Log'), which is clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., 'create_delay_log', 'create_weather_log'), and the inclusion of the API endpoint details adds noise without clarifying the tool's unique purpose.

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 lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., project setup), typical scenarios for creating daily reports, or comparisons with similar tools like 'update_daily_construction_report_log' or other 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.