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 of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation via 'GET' and 'Show', suggesting it is non-destructive, but fails to specify critical behaviors like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or pagination details (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters). The description adds minimal value beyond the HTTP method, leaving significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 no wasted words, consisting of a brief phrase, category, and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Show Dumpster Logs'), though the structure could be improved by separating the endpoint into a distinct part. The brevity is efficient, but the lack of explanatory content limits its helpfulness.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, pagination behavior, or error conditions. While the schema covers parameters, the description fails to provide necessary context for effective use, such as what 'dumpster logs' represent or how results are structured, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 descriptions for all parameters (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project' for project_id). The description does not add any semantic meaning beyond the schema, as it lacks parameter explanations. However, since the schema fully documents the parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, indicating adequate but no extra value from the description.

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 Dumpster Logs' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding clarity. It includes a category '[Project Management/Daily Log]' and an endpoint 'GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/dumpster_logs/{id}', which hints at a read operation for dumpster logs in a project context, but it lacks specificity about what 'show' entails (e.g., retrieve, list, or view details) and does not distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'list_dumpster_logs' or 'show_dumpster_log' (singular vs. plural).

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 does not mention any prerequisites, such as needing a specific project or dumpster log ID, nor does it clarify if this is for retrieving a single log by ID or a paginated list. With many sibling tools present (e.g., 'list_dumpster_logs'), the absence of usage context leaves the agent without direction on tool selection.

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