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 implies a read operation ('Show' and GET method) but does not confirm if it's safe, non-destructive, or has side effects. It mentions pagination parameters (page, per_page) but does not explain their behavioral impact (e.g., default values, limits). The description adds minimal context beyond the endpoint.

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 (one sentence plus endpoint) but inefficiently structured. It front-loads the tautological purpose, and the endpoint details are useful but could be better integrated. It avoids fluff but under-specifies key details, making it less helpful than it could be.

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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., log details, attachments, error conditions) or behavioral aspects like authentication needs or rate limits. For a tool with 4 parameters and no structured output info, the description lacks necessary context for effective use.

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 in the schema (e.g., 'ID of the company to get the makes for', 'Page number for pagination'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema adequately documents them. 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 Equipment Maintenance Log' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minor rephrasing. It adds the API endpoint path and a category tag '[Project Management/Field Productivity]', but does not specify what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieve a specific log by ID, list logs, etc.) beyond the vague 'Show'. It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like 'list_equipment_maintenance_logs' or 'get_equipment_maintenance_record_by_its_id_company_v2_0'.

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 prerequisites, context, or compare with sibling tools (e.g., list vs. show operations). The API endpoint hint suggests it retrieves a specific log by ID, but this is not explicitly stated, leaving usage unclear.

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