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 mentions 'POST' 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 is minimal and misses critical context 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 sentences, front-loading the action. However, the second sentence is just a technical endpoint reference ('POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/visitor_logs') that adds little value 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 tool is a mutation (create) with no annotations, no output schema, and nested parameters, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the expected response, error conditions, or typical use cases, leaving significant gaps for the agent to infer behavior.

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—it doesn't explain the structure of 'visitor_log' object or typical fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 the verb ('Create') and resource ('Visitor Log'), but it's vague about what a visitor log entails. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'create_visitor_log' vs. 'create_daily_construction_report_log' or 'create_work_log', leaving the scope unclear beyond the category hint '[Project Management/Daily Log]'.

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 lacks context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. It doesn't reference sibling tools or differentiate from other creation tools in the list, 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.