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 mentions 'GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/equipment_logs/{id}' which implies a read operation, but doesn't explicitly state whether this is safe, what permissions are required, whether it returns paginated results, or what happens when parameters are invalid. The description fails to provide essential behavioral context for a tool with required parameters.

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 extremely concise with just two brief sentences. While this could be seen as under-specified, each element (tool name restatement, category tag, API endpoint) serves a purpose. There's no wasted verbiage, and the information is front-loaded. However, the brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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 including pagination), lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how pagination works, error conditions, or authentication requirements. For a tool that retrieves specific equipment logs with pagination support, this leaves significant gaps for the agent to understand proper usage.

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 all parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides (it doesn't explain relationships between parameters or usage patterns). However, since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate for adequate but non-value-adding parameter documentation.

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 Equipment Logs' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal additional information. It lacks specificity about what 'show' means (e.g., retrieve, list, view) and doesn't clarify the resource scope beyond the name. While it includes a category tag '[Project Management/Daily Log]' and API endpoint, these don't meaningfully articulate the tool's purpose beyond the obvious.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools present (including other equipment-related tools like 'list_all_equipment_logs', 'show_an_equipment_log', and 'list_equipment_logs'), there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it's appropriate. The agent receives no usage context or prerequisites.

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