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 states 'List Quantity Logs' and includes an API endpoint, implying a read-only operation, but does not confirm safety (e.g., non-destructive), rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior. The endpoint suggests a GET request, but explicit behavioral traits are missing.

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: 'List Quantity Logs. [Project Management/Daily Log] GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/quantity_logs'. It is front-loaded with the core action and includes relevant API context. However, the bracketed text is somewhat cryptic and could be integrated more clearly, but overall it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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, 1 required) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what quantity logs are, the expected return format, or error conditions. For a list tool with multiple filtering options, more context on usage and output 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all 9 parameters (e.g., 'project_id' as 'Unique identifier for the project'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, as it only repeats the tool name and endpoint. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately documents parameters without description enhancement.

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 Quantity Logs' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('Quantity Logs'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what quantity logs are (e.g., project management logs for quantities) and does not differentiate from sibling tools, as there are many list tools but none specifically for quantity logs. The bracketed text '[Project Management/Daily Log]' adds some context but is vague.

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 'GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/quantity_logs', which is an API endpoint hint, but does not specify prerequisites, constraints, or sibling tools to consider. Without usage context, the agent must infer from parameters alone.

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