Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions the HTTP method (POST) and endpoint, implying a write operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the creation is idempotent, what happens on success/failure, or any side effects. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context.

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 very concise—a single line with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action ('Create Waste Log') and includes the endpoint. However, it could be more structured by separating purpose from technical details, but it earns a high score for brevity.

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 (a creation tool with nested objects and attachments), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a waste log is, what data it contains, how attachments are handled, or what the tool returns. The agent is left with significant gaps in understanding the tool's full context and 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%, with clear descriptions for 'project_id' and 'attachments', though 'waste_log' has a tautological description ('waste_log'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 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 'Create Waste Log. [Project Management/Daily Log] POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/waste_logs' restates the tool name ('Create Waste Log') and adds only a category tag and HTTP endpoint. It does not specify what a 'waste log' is or what creating one entails, making the purpose vague beyond the obvious verb-noun pairing.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes many other 'create_' tools (e.g., create_dumpster_log, create_delay_log), but the description does not differentiate this tool from them or indicate any prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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