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 'POST' implying a write operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on success/failure, or any side effects. The description is minimal and lacks essential 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 very concise—just one line with no wasted words. However, it is overly terse and under-specified, which limits its helpfulness. It is front-loaded with the action but lacks necessary detail, so it scores a 4 for efficiency but not a 5 due to under-specification.

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 mutation tool with nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a work log is, what fields it might contain, the expected response, or any error conditions. For a tool that creates a resource with an underspecified 'work_log' object, this is inadequate.

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, and a basic one for work_log. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description does not compensate for the vague 'work_log' object definition.

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 Work Log. [Project Management/Daily Log] POST /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/work_logs' restates the tool name ('Create Work Log') and adds only generic context ('Project Management/Daily Log') and the HTTP method/path. It does not specify what a 'work log' is or what it contains, making the purpose vague beyond the obvious creation action.

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 sibling tools list includes many other creation tools (e.g., create_daily_construction_report_log, create_delay_log), but the description does not differentiate this tool from them or indicate any prerequisites or context for use.

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