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 states 'Create' (implying a write/mutation operation) but does not address critical aspects like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, potential side effects (e.g., notifications), error conditions, or response format. The endpoint hint (POST) and category add minimal context, but key behavioral traits are omitted, leaving significant gaps 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 concise with two parts: the tautological name restatement and endpoint details. While not verbose, it lacks front-loaded value—the first part adds little, and the endpoint is useful but could be structured better (e.g., by explaining the action first). It avoids fluff but under-specifies, making it moderately efficient yet incomplete in conveying purpose.

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 (6 parameters, nested objects, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain the mutation's impact, expected inputs beyond the schema, or what a 'response log' represents in the system. Without annotations or output schema, the description should compensate with more context on behavior and usage, which it does not, leaving the agent under-informed for a creation tool.

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 all parameters well-documented in the schema (e.g., 'item_id', 'response_log' body, 'status' enum). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even without param details in the description, which applies here as the schema fully compensates.

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 Observation Item Response Log' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It adds the category '[Project Management/Observations]' and endpoint 'POST /rest/v1.0/observations/items/{item_id}/response_logs', which provides some context but does not clearly articulate the specific action (e.g., what a 'response log' entails) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'create_observation_item' or 'list_observation_item_response_logs'. The purpose remains vague beyond the basic creation operation.

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 (e.g., needing an existing observation item), exclusions, or related tools like 'update_observation_item' or 'list_observation_item_response_logs'. Without any usage context, an agent must infer from the endpoint and parameters alone, which is insufficient for effective tool selection.

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