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 for behavioral disclosure. While 'List all' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't mention pagination behavior (despite page/per_page parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'all' means in context. The HTTP method (GET) is included but doesn't add meaningful behavioral context beyond what's obvious.

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 purpose. The bracketed category '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' and endpoint 'GET /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/managed_equipment_logs' are somewhat extraneous but don't significantly detract from conciseness. It could be more streamlined but remains efficient.

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 3 parameters (with 100% schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'equipment logs' are, the format of returned data, pagination behavior, or error conditions. For a listing tool with multiple parameters, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool fully.

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 parameter descriptions in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already documented in the schema (company_id, page, per_page). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool's purpose as 'List all equipment logs' which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'list_equipment_logs' or 'list_project_equipment_logs' that appear in the sibling list, making it somewhat vague about its specific scope.

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 doesn't mention any prerequisites, context, or differences from similar listing tools in the sibling set (like 'list_equipment_logs' or 'list_project_equipment_logs'), leaving the agent without usage direction.

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