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 mentions 'Show' which implies a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether it returns a single log or paginated results. The URL pattern hints at a GET request, but this is insufficient for full transparency.

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 with two parts: the purpose statement and a URL pattern. It is front-loaded with the core action, and the URL provides technical context without unnecessary detail. However, the inclusion of the URL might be slightly verbose for a pure description, but it remains efficient overall.

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 of a tool with 4 parameters (2 required) and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the return format, pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters), or error conditions. For a read operation with multiple inputs, more context is needed for 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the input schema (e.g., 'ID of the log to get'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since the schema is well-documented, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as it doesn't compensate for gaps but doesn't need to.

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 an equipment log' states a clear verb ('Show') and resource ('equipment log'), but it is vague about scope and does not differentiate from sibling tools. It lacks specificity compared to other 'show' tools in the list, such as 'show_an_equipment_category' or 'show_an_equipment_model', making its exact purpose ambiguous.

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 includes a category tag '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' and a URL pattern, but these do not offer explicit usage instructions, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'show_equipment_logs' (if present) or other equipment-related tools.

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