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. It mentions 'GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/inspection_logs', which implies a read-only HTTP GET operation, but doesn't explicitly state whether it's safe, idempotent, or has side effects. It also doesn't describe pagination behavior, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 very concise with just one sentence, front-loaded with the tool's purpose. However, it includes an API endpoint path which may be redundant for an AI agent. The structure is clear but could benefit from additional context.

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 minimal. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral details, usage guidelines, and output information. For a list tool with many filtering parameters, more context about return format and pagination would be helpful.

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 additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., log_date vs start_date/end_date) or provide usage examples.

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 the resource 'Inspection Logs', with a specific context '[Project Management/Daily Log]'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on inspection logs, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_inspection_types' or 'list_checklist_inspections'.

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 any prerequisites, constraints, or sibling tools that might serve similar purposes. The agent must infer usage from the tool 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.