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}/call_logs' which implies a read-only HTTP GET operation, but doesn't explicitly state this is a safe read operation, nor does it describe pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no logs exist. The HTTP method hint is useful but insufficient.

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 but includes extraneous information. 'List Call Logs.' is the core purpose, but '[Project Management/Daily Log]' appears to be metadata rather than helpful context, and 'GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/call_logs' is implementation detail that doesn't help an AI agent understand when or how to use the tool. The structure could be more focused on user guidance.

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?

For a list operation with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (array of call logs? paginated response?), doesn't mention error conditions, and provides no context about the relationship between parameters (e.g., log_date vs start_date/end_date exclusivity). The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without trial and error.

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 already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description.

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 'List Call Logs' which is a clear verb+resource combination. It specifies the resource type (call logs) and the action (list). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'show_call_logs' or other list tools, which prevents a perfect score.

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, exclusions, or comparison with similar list operations. The bracketed '[Project Management/Daily Log]' appears to be a category tag rather than usage guidance.

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