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 implies a read operation ('Show') and includes pagination parameters, suggesting it returns a paginated list. However, it doesn't disclose critical behaviors: whether it's safe (non-destructive), requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format is (since no output schema exists). The API endpoint hints at a REST GET, but behavioral details are minimal.

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: a purpose statement and API endpoint. It's front-loaded with the core action. However, the first part is redundant with the name, and the second part (API endpoint) might be overly technical without explanatory value for an AI agent. It avoids unnecessary verbosity but could be more informative.

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, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, output, or error conditions. The API endpoint provides some context but isn't sufficient for an agent to understand how to use the tool effectively. Sibling tools include many 'show' and 'list' variants, but no differentiation is made.

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 schema (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, not even clarifying the 'id' parameter (described as 'ID of the company to get the logs for', which seems inconsistent with 'managed_equipment_logs/{id}'). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as 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 'Show an Project Equipment Log' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minor grammatical issues ('an Project'). It specifies the verb 'Show' and resource 'Project Equipment Log', but lacks specificity about what 'Show' means (e.g., retrieve, display, list entries). It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'show_an_equipment_log' or 'list_project_equipment_logs', which might have similar purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description includes a category tag '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' and API endpoint 'GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/managed_equipment_logs/{id}', but these don't offer usage context, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools. The agent must infer usage from the name and parameters alone.

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