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 mentions 'GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/notes_logs', which implies a read-only HTTP GET operation, but doesn't explicitly state safety (e.g., non-destructive), rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior. The description adds minimal context beyond the HTTP method, leaving key behavioral traits unspecified.

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 with two sentences: one stating the purpose and context, and another providing the HTTP endpoint. It's front-loaded with the core action ('List Notes Logs') and avoids unnecessary verbosity. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating usage notes from technical details.

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 (10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'notes logs' are, the return format, pagination, error handling, or any behavioral nuances. While the schema covers parameters, the lack of output schema and annotations means the description should provide more context about the tool's operation and results, which it fails to do.

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 detailed parameter descriptions in the input schema (e.g., date formats, filter options). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but since the schema is comprehensive, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate for gaps.

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 the tool's purpose as 'List Notes Logs' with a context tag '[Project Management/Daily Log]', which indicates it retrieves notes logs in a project management context. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools (e.g., 'list_notes_logs' vs. 'show_notes_logs' or 'create_notes_log'), and the verb 'List' is somewhat generic without specifying scope or behavior beyond what's implied by the name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any mention of prerequisites, constraints, or sibling tool comparisons (e.g., 'show_notes_logs' for single logs or 'create_notes_log' for creation). Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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