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 states 'List Project Equipment Logs' and includes an API endpoint, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, how pagination works (implied by page/per_page parameters but not explained), or what the output format looks like. The description is minimal and lacks critical context for safe invocation.

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 one with the API endpoint. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. However, the bracketed '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' adds minimal value and could be omitted for better clarity. Overall, it's efficient with little waste.

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 (a list operation with pagination), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'equipment logs' entail, how results are structured, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool with three parameters and no structured safety hints, this leaves significant gaps for the agent to infer usage correctly.

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 project_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, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 Project Equipment Logs', which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other list/read operations in the sibling tools (like 'list_all_equipment_logs' or 'list_project_equipment_maintenance_logs'), making it somewhat vague about its specific scope beyond the project context.

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/Field Productivity]' and includes the API endpoint, but this doesn't help the agent decide between this tool and other list operations for equipment or logs. No explicit when/when-not or alternative tool references are provided.

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