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 indicates a POST operation, implying a write/mutation, but does not specify required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or error handling. The mention of attachments having special handling ('multipart/form-data') is useful but buried in the input schema description, not the tool description itself. The description lacks critical behavioral details 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 with three elements: action, category, and endpoint. However, it is not front-loaded with the most critical information—the purpose is vague, and the endpoint detail might be better placed elsewhere. While efficient, it under-specifies by not elaborating on the tool's role, making it less helpful than a more informative sentence would be.

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 of a creation tool with nested objects and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a dumpster log is, its expected output, or how it fits into the project management context. The input schema covers parameters well, but the description fails to provide necessary context for effective use, especially compared to sibling tools with similar structures.

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 parameters like 'project_id' and 'attachments'. The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. It does not explain the structure or purpose of the 'dumpster_log' object or how attachments integrate. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but the description adds no value here.

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 Dumpster Log' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It specifies the category '[Project Management/Daily Log]' and endpoint 'POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/dumpster_logs', which hints at the action and resource, but lacks specificity about what a 'dumpster log' entails or its purpose within project management. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create_daily_construction_report_log' or 'create_waste_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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as when dumpster logs are required in project workflows or how they differ from other daily logs like waste or delivery logs. With many sibling tools for creating various logs, the absence of usage guidelines leaves the agent without direction.

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