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 'GET' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'Show' entails (e.g., returns full log details). The description is minimal and lacks critical context for safe invocation.

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 brief purpose statement and a technical endpoint reference. It's front-loaded with the core action. However, the technical details (GET endpoint) might be redundant if the agent already has structured API info, and the purpose statement is overly terse, missing useful context.

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 tool with 4 parameters (2 required), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Show' returns (e.g., log details, attachments), behavioral constraints, or error cases. For a read operation with pagination parameters, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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 since coverage is high, the baseline is 3. The description doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., 'id' is required for a specific log, 'page' and 'per_page' for pagination within that log).

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 Delay Logs' states the verb ('Show') and resource ('Delay Logs'), but it's vague about scope and lacks specificity. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'list_delay_logs' or 'show_delay_log_type', which could be similar. The inclusion of '[Project Management/Daily Log] GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/delay_logs/{id}' adds technical context but doesn't clarify purpose beyond the name.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Given sibling tools like 'list_delay_logs' (likely for listing multiple logs) and 'show_delay_log_type' (likely for types), the agent has no help in choosing this tool for retrieving a specific delay log by ID.

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