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 states 'Create Safety Violation Log' and includes an HTTP method (POST), implying a write operation, but lacks critical behavioral details: required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. The mention of attachments having special upload requirements is buried in the schema, not the description. This leaves 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 brief and front-loaded with the core action ('Create Safety Violation Log'), followed by category and API path. It wastes no words, but the API path adds little value for an AI agent. The structure is efficient, though it could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

For a create operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like side effects, error conditions, or response format. The schema handles parameters well, but the description doesn't compensate for the lack of annotations or output details, leaving the agent under-informed for a mutation tool in a complex 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%, with clear descriptions for 'project_id' and 'attachments', though 'safety_violation_log' has a tautological description. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what fields 'safety_violation_log' should contain or provide examples. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description fails to enhance understanding of the nested object.

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 Safety Violation Log' restates the tool name and adds minimal context with '[Project Management/Daily Log] POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/safety_violation_logs'. It specifies the verb 'Create' and resource 'Safety Violation Log', but lacks detail on what a safety violation log entails or how it differs from other log types. Compared to siblings like 'create_accident_log' or 'create_delay_log', it doesn't clearly distinguish its purpose beyond the 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 does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after a safety incident), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'create_accident_log' or 'create_near_miss'. Without any usage instructions, the agent has no basis for selecting this tool appropriately.

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