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 Inspection Logs' and includes a GET endpoint, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination handling (hinted by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters), authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions. 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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the bracketed '[Project Management/Daily Log]' and endpoint details add clutter without clear value. It's efficient but could be more structured by separating functional description from technical details.

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 (including pagination), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'Show' entails (e.g., single log vs. list), the role of 'id', or the output format. For a read operation with pagination, more context on behavior and results is needed.

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%, so the schema fully documents parameters (project_id, id, page, per_page). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain relationships (e.g., that 'id' might be for a specific log) or usage of pagination params. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 Inspection Logs' states the verb ('Show') and resource ('Inspection Logs'), but it's vague about scope and format. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_inspection_logs' or 'show_inspection_type', leaving ambiguity about whether this retrieves a single log or multiple logs. The bracketed '[Project Management/Daily Log]' adds some context but is unclear.

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. The sibling list includes many inspection-related tools (e.g., 'list_inspection_logs', 'show_inspection_type'), but the description provides no comparison or prerequisites. It mentions a GET endpoint but doesn't explain its applicability beyond that.

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