Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'POST' implying a write operation, but does not specify permissions required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on success/failure, or any side effects (e.g., notifications). The mention of multipart/form-data for attachments is a useful detail, but overall behavioral context is sparse for a creation tool.

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 but under-specified—it wastes space on the HTTP method/path (redundant for an API tool) and a category tag without adding meaningful context. It is front-loaded with the tool name but lacks substance, making it inefficient 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?

For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a delay log is, what data it expects in 'delay_log' object, typical use cases, or the response structure. The multipart/form-data note for attachments is helpful, but overall it leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand and use the tool effectively.

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., project_id as 'Unique identifier for the project', attachments with upload instructions). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since the schema is well-documented, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden.

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 Delay Log. [Project Management/Daily Log] POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/delay_logs' restates the tool name ('Create Delay Log') and adds only a category tag and HTTP method/path. It does not specify what a 'delay log' is, what it contains, or its purpose in project management, making it vague and minimally informative beyond the name.

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. Given the sibling tools list includes many other 'create' operations (e.g., create_daily_construction_report_log, create_delivery_log), there is no indication of when a delay log is appropriate compared to other log types, leaving the agent without usage context.

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