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 a POST endpoint, implying a write operation, but fails to describe permissions, side effects, error conditions, or response format. The attachment note about multipart/form-data is a partial behavioral hint but insufficient for a mutation 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 brief but inefficiently structured. It includes redundant information (tool name restated) and an API endpoint that may not aid the agent. However, it avoids excessive verbosity, earning a mid-range score for minimal waste.

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 (3 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It lacks essential context for a creation tool, such as what a 'Delivery Log' represents, expected outcomes, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for agent invocation.

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., 'Unique identifier for the project'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the baseline is 3 since the schema adequately documents 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 'Create Delivery Log. [Project Management/Daily Log] POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/delivery_logs' restates the tool name ('Create Delivery Log') without adding meaningful specificity. It includes a category tag and API endpoint, but lacks a clear verb+resource explanation of what a 'Delivery Log' is or what creation entails, making it vague and tautological.

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, or sibling tools (e.g., 'create_daily_construction_report_log' or 'create_delay_log'), leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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