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 pagination parameters ('page', 'per_page') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, safe, or has rate limits. The description lacks details on response format, error handling, or authentication requirements, leaving significant gaps for a list operation.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words, efficiently stating the tool's purpose. It includes a category tag ('[Project Management/Field Productivity]') and API endpoint, which adds context without verbosity. However, the endpoint detail might be more technical than necessary for an AI agent.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a list operation with pagination, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., log entries, metadata), how pagination works, or any limitations. For a tool with 3 parameters and complex sibling context, more guidance is needed to ensure proper usage.

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 clear descriptions for 'company_id', 'page', and 'per_page'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description could have clarified pagination defaults or constraints.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('Equipment Maintenance Logs'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on maintenance logs rather than other equipment-related operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar list tools like 'list_equipment_logs' or 'list_all_maintenance_logs_attachment'.

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 prerequisites, context (e.g., company scope), or compare with sibling tools like 'list_all_equipment_maintenance_records_company_v2_0' or 'list_all_maintenance_logs_attachment'. The agent must infer usage from the name and parameters alone.

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