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. The description mentions it's a GET operation (implying read-only) and includes a path template, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like pagination behavior (page/per_page parameters suggest pagination), authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response format looks like. 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 extremely concise - just 7 words plus an HTTP method/path. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the inclusion of the HTTP method and path adds technical detail that may not be necessary for an AI agent's understanding, slightly reducing efficiency. The '[Project Management/Daily Log]' tag is ambiguous and doesn't earn its place.

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 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what dumpster logs are (contextually), what the response contains, how pagination works, or any error conditions. The agent would need to infer too much from just the name and parameter schema. Given the complexity and lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more contextual information.

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 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (like log_date vs start_date/end_date), provide examples, or clarify usage patterns. With complete schema coverage, the baseline 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 'List Dumpster Logs' which clearly indicates a read/list operation on a specific resource (dumpster logs). However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other list tools in the sibling set (like list_daily_construction_report_logs, list_delay_logs, etc.) beyond the resource name. The HTTP method and path are included but don't enhance purpose clarity for an AI agent.

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. There are many other list tools in the sibling set (e.g., list_daily_construction_report_logs, list_delay_logs) but no indication of when dumpster logs specifically are needed or what distinguishes them from other log types. The '[Project Management/Daily Log]' tag is vague and doesn't provide actionable usage context.

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