Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states it's a list operation via GET, implying read-only and non-destructive, but does not specify pagination behavior (e.g., using 'page' and 'per_page' parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 parts: the purpose and the HTTP method/endpoint. It is front-loaded with the action, and there is no wasted verbiage. However, it could be more structured by separating usage notes from the endpoint.

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 (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, pagination details, or error handling. For a list tool with multiple filtering options, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 8 parameters (e.g., 'project_id', date filters, pagination). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions (e.g., 'log_date' vs. 'start_date'/'end_date'). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 Plan Revision Logs' states the verb ('List') and resource ('Plan Revision Logs'), but it is vague about what 'Plan Revision Logs' are and lacks specificity. It does not distinguish from sibling tools, as many other tools also list items (e.g., 'list_accident_logs', 'list_delay_logs'), making it unclear how this tool differs.

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 mentions '[Project Management/Daily Log]' and a GET endpoint, but this does not indicate usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Without explicit when/when-not instructions, the agent lacks direction.

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