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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get import logs' without indicating whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, if it returns paginated results, or any error conditions. The mention of pagination parameters in the schema is not explained in the description, leaving behavioral traits unclear.

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 extremely concise with 'Get import logs.' followed by a bracketed category and API path. While the API path adds technical detail, it does not aid the agent in understanding usage. The description is front-loaded but under-specified, though 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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'import logs' contain, the format of the response, pagination behavior, or error handling. Without annotations or an output schema, the description fails to provide the necessary context for effective tool use, especially for a read operation with multiple required IDs.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema itself (e.g., company_id, project_id, locale for parsing). The description adds no additional semantic context about parameters, such as explaining relationships between IDs or the purpose of the locale parameter. However, with high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the schema adequately covers parameter meanings.

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 'Get import logs' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'get_import_logs_v2_0'. It lacks specificity about what 'import logs' are (e.g., logs for schedule imports, file imports) and does not distinguish this tool from any siblings, though many sibling tools exist for various resources. The description fails to provide a clear verb+resource combination beyond the name itself.

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 (e.g., needing a completed import job), context for usage, or any sibling tools that might be related (like 'get_import_status_v2_0' or 'initiate_schedule_import_v2_0'). This leaves the agent with no usage direction.

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