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. The description mentions it's a GET operation (implying read-only) and shows the endpoint structure, but doesn't disclose important behaviors like pagination (implied by per_page/page parameters but not explained), authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response format looks like. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what's implied by the HTTP method.

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 two short phrases. It's front-loaded with the core purpose statement. However, the second part with the endpoint path feels more like implementation detail than helpful description. While efficient, it arguably under-specifies given the tool's complexity.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what equipment logs are, what data they contain, how results are structured, or any behavioral constraints. The endpoint path provides some technical context but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral and output information that would help an agent understand what to expect from this tool.

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 8 parameters well-documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description. The description doesn't compensate for any gaps because there are none in the schema.

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 Equipment Logs' is a tautology that restates the tool name. It adds the endpoint path '[Project Management/Daily Log] GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/equipment_logs', which provides technical context but doesn't articulate what the tool actually does beyond the obvious. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling list tools like 'list_all_equipment_logs' or 'list_project_equipment_logs'.

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 numerous sibling tools that also list equipment logs (e.g., 'list_all_equipment_logs', 'list_project_equipment_logs'), there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it should be preferred. The endpoint path suggests project-specific filtering, but this isn't explicitly stated as a usage guideline.

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