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 only states 'List Work Logs' with an endpoint, failing to describe whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, any rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters but not explained), or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a tool with 8 parameters and no annotation coverage.

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 very concise—just one sentence with the tool name, category, and endpoint. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could be more structured by separating the endpoint from usage hints, but it's efficient with zero wasted words.

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 return format, pagination, authentication needs, or error handling. For a list tool with filtering and pagination parameters, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively, making this incomplete for practical 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter well-documented in the input schema (e.g., date formats, filtering options). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting and the description doesn't compensate or add value.

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 Work Logs' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('Work Logs'), making the purpose evident. It includes a category hint '[Project Management/Daily Log]' and the HTTP method/endpoint, which adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'show_work_logs' or 'list_work_activities', which are present in the sibling list, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 lacks any mention of prerequisites, context (e.g., for filtering or pagination), or comparison with other list or show tools in the sibling set. This leaves the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios.

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