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. It states 'GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/delivery_logs', implying a read-only HTTP GET operation, which suggests non-destructive behavior. However, it doesn't mention pagination behavior (despite 'page' and 'per_page' parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. For a list operation with 9 parameters, this is 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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It consists of a single sentence with the tool name, category, and endpoint, avoiding unnecessary verbosity. However, it could be more structured by separating the functional description from the technical endpoint details for better readability.

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 complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination behavior, or how filters interact. While the schema covers parameters, the description fails to provide operational context, making it inadequate for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional inference.

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 all parameters well-documented in the input schema (e.g., date formats, filter options). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the endpoint structure. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List Delivery Logs' with the verb 'List' and resource 'Delivery Logs'. It specifies the context as 'Project Management/Daily Log' and includes the HTTP method and endpoint, which helps distinguish it from other list operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_daily_construction_report_logs' or 'list_delay_logs', which are similar list operations in the same domain.

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 mentions the endpoint but doesn't explain the relationship with other logging tools or when delivery logs specifically are needed. With many sibling tools for different log types (e.g., 'list_delay_logs', 'list_daily_construction_report_logs'), the agent lacks context to choose appropriately.

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