Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List Delay Logs' implies a read-only operation but doesn't confirm this. It doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (despite page/per_page parameters), or what format the returned data takes. The HTTP method 'GET' is mentioned but without context about safety or side effects.

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 but under-specified rather than efficiently informative. 'List Delay Logs' is too brief for a tool with 9 parameters. The additional '[Project Management/Daily Log] GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/delay_logs' provides API context but doesn't help the agent understand when or how to use the tool effectively.

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 tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'Delay Logs' are, what data they contain, or what the listing operation returns. The agent must infer everything from parameter names alone. Given the complexity and lack of structured metadata, the description should provide much more context about the tool's purpose and behavior.

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 information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work, though the description could have explained relationships between date parameters (log_date vs start_date/end_date) or filtering logic.

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 Delay Logs' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It lacks a clear verb-resource combination and doesn't distinguish this tool from other list operations among the many sibling tools. The bracketed '[Project Management/Daily Log]' adds minimal context but doesn't clarify what 'Delay Logs' are or what listing them entails.

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. With 9 parameters including date filters and pagination, there's no indication of when to use log_date versus start_date/end_date, or how this differs from other listing tools in the extensive sibling list. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to similar tools are mentioned.

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