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 operation) and includes an HTTP method (POST), but fails to mention required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, error handling, or what the response contains. This leaves significant gaps 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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the inclusion of the category tag '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' and API endpoint 'POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/managed_equipment_maintenance_logs' adds technical detail that may not be essential for an AI agent, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on required permissions, expected response format, error conditions, or how the tool interacts with other resources (e.g., project or equipment existence). This makes it inadequate for safe and effective use by an 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 already documents all five parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between fields (e.g., how 'upload_ids' relate to attachments) or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('Project Equipment Maintenance Log'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the exact resource type, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar creation tools like 'create_equipment_maintenance_log' or 'create_maintenance_log_attachment' beyond the resource name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing project and managed equipment), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'create_equipment_maintenance_log' or 'update_project_equipment_maintenance_log', 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.