Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions 'POST' implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The attachment note hints at multipart/form-data requirements, but this is incomplete behavioral context 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 brief but includes extraneous details like the HTTP method and endpoint path, which are less helpful for an AI agent. It's front-loaded with the core action but wastes space on implementation details that don't aid tool selection or invocation.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a creation tool with nested objects, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the purpose of 'plan_revision_log' object or 'attachments', nor does it describe the expected response or error handling, leaving significant gaps for a mutation 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 clear parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project.'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema adequately documents the inputs, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as it doesn't detract from understanding.

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 Plan Revision Log. [Project Management/Daily Log] POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/plan_revision_logs' restates the tool name and adds a category and HTTP method, but it's vague about what a 'Plan Revision Log' is and what creating it entails. It doesn't specify the resource or action clearly beyond the name, making it tautological and lacking specificity.

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. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'create_daily_construction_report_log', 'create_delay_log'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or distinctions, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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