Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/accident_logs', indicating a read-only HTTP GET operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by per_page/page parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. The description adds minimal context beyond the HTTP method.

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 concise with two parts: a clear action statement and an HTTP endpoint. It's front-loaded with the purpose. However, the '[Project Management/Daily Log]' tag adds minor clutter without clear value.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 9 parameters with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the tool as a list operation but lacks details on return format, error conditions, or typical use cases. For a read tool with many filtering options, more context would be helpful.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 9 parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain interactions like using log_date vs. start_date/end_date). Baseline 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 'List Accident Logs' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('Accident Logs'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools. It lacks specificity about what 'list' entails (e.g., filtered retrieval vs. simple enumeration).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description includes '[Project Management/Daily Log]' which hints at context but doesn't provide explicit usage instructions, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'show_accident_logs' or other list tools.

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