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. It states 'Create equipment log..' which implies a write operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The description is too brief to offer meaningful context beyond the basic action.

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 very concise with only two sentences, but it's front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence includes the API endpoint, which is somewhat redundant but not wasteful. It could be more structured, but it avoids unnecessary 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 of a 9-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the purpose of the log, what data is required beyond the schema, or what the tool returns. For a mutation tool with rich parameters, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 fully documents all 9 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema. The baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 equipment log') and resource ('equipment log'), but it's vague about what an equipment log entails. It doesn't specify what data is logged or the purpose of the log, and it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_equipment_log_project' or 'create_an_project_equipment_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 mentions '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' as a category, but this is generic and doesn't help differentiate from sibling tools. No explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites are given.

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