Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Show Call Logs' and an HTTP GET endpoint, which implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't confirm safety (e.g., non-destructive), discuss authentication needs, rate limits, pagination behavior (given the 'page' and 'per_page' parameters), or error handling. The description is insufficient for a tool with four 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 brief and front-loaded with the tool's name and category. However, it includes an API endpoint that may be redundant for an AI agent and lacks essential usage details. While not verbose, it under-specifies rather than being optimally concise, but it avoids unnecessary fluff.

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 incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., call log details), how pagination works, or behavioral aspects. For a read operation with multiple parameters, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly without additional context.

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 (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project' for project_id). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema—it doesn't explain relationships (e.g., that 'id' is the call log ID within the project) or usage of pagination parameters. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't enhance 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 'Show Call Logs. [Project Management/Daily Log] GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/call_logs/{id}' restates the tool name ('Show Call Logs') and adds a category tag and API endpoint, but it's vague about what 'show' means—does it retrieve a single log or list logs? It doesn't specify the resource clearly (e.g., 'retrieve a specific call log by ID') or distinguish from siblings like 'list_call_logs' (which appears in the sibling list). This is borderline tautological with minimal added clarity.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a project_id and call log ID), compare it to sibling tools like 'list_call_logs' (which likely lists multiple logs), or indicate any constraints. Without this, an agent cannot make an informed choice among similar tools.

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