Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool lists logs via a GET request, implying it is a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm safety (e.g., non-destructive), address authentication needs, rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters but not described), or error handling. The description lacks critical behavioral details beyond the basic action.

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 and front-loaded with the core action ('List Safety Violation Logs'), followed by technical details. It wastes no words, though the technical part could be more integrated. However, it is slightly under-specified for a tool with 8 parameters, as it does not guide usage effectively, but this is a completeness issue rather than conciseness.

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 lacks information on output format, pagination behavior, error cases, and how to interpret results. While the schema covers parameters, the description does not compensate for missing behavioral and output context, making it inadequate for effective tool invocation.

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 parameter descriptions in the input schema (e.g., date formats, filters). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, as it does not explain parameter interactions (e.g., using 'log_date' vs. 'start_date/end_date') or usage examples. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but no extra value is contributed.

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 Safety Violation Logs' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('Safety Violation Logs'), providing a basic purpose. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools (e.g., 'list_safety_violation_logs' vs. 'show_safety_violation_logs' or other list tools), which limits its specificity. The inclusion of '[Project Management/Daily Log] GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/safety_violation_logs' adds technical context but does not enhance the functional clarity beyond 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions a project context via the URL path but does not specify prerequisites (e.g., required permissions), compare it to similar list tools (e.g., 'show_safety_violation_logs' for single logs), or indicate when filtering parameters are necessary. This leaves the agent without usage context.

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