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 mentions the HTTP method (GET) and endpoint, implying a read-only operation, but fails to describe pagination behavior (via 'page' and 'per_page' parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 7 parameters.

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 purpose, consisting of a single sentence that efficiently states the action and endpoint. There is no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more informative without losing brevity.

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 (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, pagination, error cases, and how parameters interact (e.g., 'log_date' vs. 'start_date'/'end_date'). For a list operation with multiple filtering options, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 each parameter well-documented in the input schema (e.g., date formats, pagination, filters). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since the schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as it doesn't detract from understanding.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('Weather Logs'), and includes the API endpoint context ('GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/weather_logs'), which helps distinguish it from other list operations. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_weather_logs_v1_1' or other list tools, keeping it from a perfect score.

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, such as 'list_weather_logs_v1_1' or other filtering tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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