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 Visitor Logs' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like. The description adds minimal context beyond the name.

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: 'List Visitor Logs' is the core action, followed by context and API endpoint. It wastes no words, though the bracketed context and endpoint could be seen as slightly technical clutter. Overall, it's efficient and structured.

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 inadequate. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, output format, or error conditions. For a list tool with filtering and pagination, more context is needed to help an AI agent use it correctly, especially without annotations.

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. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain relationships (e.g., 'log_date' vs. 'start_date'/'end_date') or usage tips. 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List Visitor Logs' specifies the verb (list) and resource (visitor logs). It includes context '[Project Management/Daily Log]' and the API endpoint, which helps distinguish it from other list tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'show_visitor_logs' or 'create_visitor_log', which are present in the sibling list, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'show_visitor_logs' (for single log details) or 'create_visitor_log' (for creation), nor does it specify prerequisites or constraints. The API endpoint hint is technical but not usage guidance for an AI agent.

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