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 implies a creation operation via 'POST', suggesting mutation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The endpoint hint adds minimal context but lacks actionable details for safe invocation.

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 brief elements: action, category, and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the primary action. However, it lacks depth and could be more informative without sacrificing brevity, as it under-specifies rather than being efficiently detailed.

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 tool's complexity (3 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It does not explain the purpose of 'inspection_log' object, how attachments work, or what the tool returns. For a mutation tool with no annotations, more context is needed to ensure correct 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%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'project_id' as a unique identifier, 'attachments' with upload instructions). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description fails to compensate or clarify usage.

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 Inspection Log' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It includes a category '[Project Management/Daily Log]' and an endpoint 'POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/inspection_logs', which hints at context but does not specify what the tool does beyond the obvious. It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_daily_construction_report_log' or 'create_delay_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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. With many sibling tools for creating logs (e.g., 'create_daily_construction_report_log', 'create_delay_log'), the lack of usage guidelines leaves the agent guessing about appropriate scenarios.

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