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. The description mentions 'GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/manpower_logs/{id}' which implies a read operation, but doesn't explicitly state whether this is a read-only tool, what permissions are required, whether it returns paginated results, or what happens when the ID doesn't exist. The HTTP method hint is useful but insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately concise with two parts: the tool purpose and the endpoint reference. Both sentences earn their place - the first states what the tool does, the second provides implementation context. However, it could be more front-loaded with clearer purpose before the 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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (a single manpower log? paginated list?), doesn't mention error conditions, and provides minimal behavioral context. The endpoint reference helps but doesn't compensate for the missing information about the tool's behavior and output.

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. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions the endpoint path which implies the relationship between project_id and id parameters, but doesn't explain their interaction or the optional pagination parameters. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given 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 Manpower Logs' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal additional context. It mentions the resource ('Manpower Logs') but lacks a specific verb or scope beyond the generic 'Show'. The bracketed '[Project Management/Daily Log]' adds some domain context, but doesn't clarify what 'Show' means in this context (list? retrieve details?). This is better than a single word but still vague.

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. It doesn't mention any sibling tools (like 'list_manpower_logs' which appears in the sibling list) or explain what distinguishes this tool from other manpower log tools. The agent receives no usage context beyond the tool name itself.

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