Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Show Notes Logs' and includes an HTTP GET endpoint, implying a read-only operation, but does not confirm safety, permissions, rate limits, or side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient to inform the agent about critical behavioral traits.

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 but under-specified. It consists of a tautological phrase, a category tag, and an HTTP endpoint. While brief, it lacks meaningful content that would help an agent understand the tool's purpose or usage, making it inefficient rather than appropriately concise.

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 complexity (a read operation with pagination), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'Notes Logs' are, what data is returned, or how pagination works. For a tool with four parameters and no structured output information, the description fails to provide adequate 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 descriptions for all four parameters (project_id, id, page, per_page). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since the schema is well-documented, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description does not compensate for any gaps because there are none.

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 Notes Logs. [Project Management/Daily Log] GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/notes_logs/{id}' restates the tool name ('Show Notes Logs') and adds only a category tag and HTTP endpoint. It does not specify what action is performed (e.g., retrieve, display, list) or what 'Notes Logs' are, making it vague. The sibling tools include many 'show_' tools (e.g., show_accident_logs, show_call_logs), but this description fails to distinguish itself from them.

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 any sibling tools that might be relevant (e.g., other 'show_' tools for logs). Without such information, an agent cannot determine appropriate usage scenarios.

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