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. The description mentions 'GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/accident_logs/{id}', which implies a read-only HTTP GET operation, but doesn't explicitly state whether it's safe, what permissions are needed, or how pagination works (given the page/per_page parameters). It lacks critical behavioral context for a tool with pagination 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 brief but inefficiently structured. It wastes characters on the API endpoint format instead of explaining the tool's purpose. While concise, it's under-specified rather than optimally front-loaded with helpful information. The single sentence format is acceptable but not exemplary.

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 (4 parameters including pagination, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'show' means operationally, how pagination interacts with the required 'id' parameter, or what the return format looks like. For a tool with both a specific ID and pagination parameters, this creates ambiguity about its actual behavior.

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 descriptions for all four parameters (project_id, id, page, per_page). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation purely through the schema, with no value added by the description.

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 'Show Accident Logs' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It mentions '[Project Management/Daily Log]' and the API endpoint, but doesn't specify what 'show' means (list? retrieve details?) or what resource it operates on beyond the name. Compared to sibling tools like 'list_accident_logs' and 'create_accident_log', it fails to distinguish its specific purpose.

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. With sibling tools like 'list_accident_logs' (which likely lists multiple logs) and 'create_accident_log' (which creates new logs), there's no indication whether this tool retrieves a single log by ID, paginates through logs, or serves another purpose. The agent receives no usage context.

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