Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/quantity_logs' which implies a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on failure. The description adds minimal context beyond the HTTP method.

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 action and the HTTP endpoint. It's front-loaded with the purpose. However, the bracketed '[Project Management/Daily Log]' is slightly awkward and could be integrated more smoothly, but overall it's efficient with zero waste.

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 mutation tool with nested objects, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value, error handling, or provide enough context for safe usage. The agent lacks critical information to invoke this tool effectively in a project management system.

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 parameters well. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the structure of 'quantity_log' object or 'attachments' array). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the 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 states 'Create Quantity Log' which is a clear verb+resource, but it's vague about what a 'Quantity Log' is in the context of project management/daily logs. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'create_daily_construction_report_log' or 'create_work_log', leaving the purpose somewhat ambiguous.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description includes '[Project Management/Daily Log]' which hints at context, but provides no explicit when/when-not instructions or references to sibling tools. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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