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 states 'Show' and includes a GET endpoint, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm safety (e.g., non-destructive), rate limits, authentication needs, or return format. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the HTTP method.

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 a single sentence with the tool name and endpoint, which is efficient. However, it includes redundant information (the tool name is repeated) and could be more front-loaded with key usage details. It earns a 4 for brevity but lacks optimal structure.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a read operation with 4 parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'Show' entails (e.g., retrieves a specific log by ID with pagination), return values, or error conditions. The agent lacks sufficient context for reliable invocation.

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'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema is comprehensive. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 Daily Construction Report Logs' states the verb ('Show') and resource ('Daily Construction Report Logs'), providing a basic purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_daily_construction_report_logs' or 'show_delay_logs', leaving ambiguity about scope or specificity. It is clear but lacks 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 includes no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., project management), or exclusions. Given many sibling tools (e.g., 'list_daily_construction_report_logs'), the agent receives no help in selecting this specific tool.

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