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 mentions the HTTP method (POST) and category, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is a mutation (implied by 'Create'), what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, what happens on success/failure, or the response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 and front-loaded with the action. However, it includes redundant information (restating the name) and the HTTP method/endpoint, which may not be necessary for an AI agent. It is concise but could be more focused on semantic guidance.

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 (mutation tool with nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on the 'manpower_log' object structure, attachment handling, validation behavior, and expected outcomes. For a tool that creates a resource with multiple parameters, this leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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 documents all parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it does not explain the structure of 'manpower_log' or 'attachments'). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description offers no additional value.

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 Manpower Log. [Project Management/Daily Log] POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/manpower_logs' restates the tool name ('Create Manpower Log') and adds only minimal context (category and HTTP method). It does not specify what a 'Manpower Log' is or what data it contains, making the purpose vague beyond the obvious creation action.

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, constraints, or sibling tools (e.g., other creation tools in the list like 'create_daily_construction_report_log'), leaving the agent with no usage context.

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