Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action ('Create Weather Log') and HTTP method (POST), implying a write operation. However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects, rate limits, or response format. The description is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, leaving critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

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. However, it includes redundant information like the HTTP method and endpoint path, which may not add value for tool selection. While concise, it could be more structured by separating functional details from technical metadata, but it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 nested objects and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what a 'weather_log' entails, how attachments are handled, or what the tool returns. Without this context, the agent lacks sufficient information to use the tool effectively, especially for a mutation operation.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'project_id', 'weather_log', and 'attachments'. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the structure of 'weather_log' or usage of 'attachments'. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 Weather Log. [Project Management/Daily Log] POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/weather_logs' restates the tool name ('Create Weather Log') and adds minimal context (category and HTTP method). It lacks a specific verb-resource combination beyond the name, and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'create_weather_log_v1.1' or other creation tools, making it vague and tautological.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and fails to differentiate it from similar tools like 'create_weather_log_v1.1' or other weather-related tools. This absence of usage instructions leaves the agent without direction.

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