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 Weather Log' and includes a POST endpoint, implying a write operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on duplicate creation, or the response format. The multipart/form-data note for attachments is useful but insufficient for a mutation tool with no annotation coverage.

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 action ('Create Weather Log'). The endpoint details are concise, though they could be considered technical clutter. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, but the lack of meaningful context reduces its effectiveness.

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), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what a Weather Log is, what data it holds, or what the tool returns. The multipart/form-data note is helpful but does not compensate for the missing behavioral and output context.

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 each parameter (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project.' for project_id). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema itself is well-documented. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have clarified the 'weather_log' object structure.

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/v1.1/projects/{project_id}/daily_logs/weather_logs' restates the tool name ('Create Weather Log') and adds only technical endpoint details. It does not specify what a 'Weather Log' is or what it contains, making the purpose vague beyond the obvious creation action. No differentiation from sibling tools is provided.

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 (e.g., within daily logs), or exclusions. Given the sibling list includes other creation tools (e.g., 'create_daily_construction_report_log'), there is no help in choosing between them.

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