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 mentions 'GET' and includes pagination parameters (page, per_page), hinting at read-only behavior and paginated output. However, it doesn't disclose critical traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or the structure of returned logs. The description is minimal and leaves behavioral assumptions to the agent.

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 ('Show Plan Revision Logs'), followed by technical details (category and API endpoint). It avoids redundancy, but the API endpoint information, while concise, may be more relevant to developers than AI agents. The structure is efficient, though slightly cluttered with bracketed 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 'Plan Revision Logs' are, the format of returned data, or how pagination works in practice. For a read operation with potential complexity, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively, making this description incomplete.

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 (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project'). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between project_id and id, or pagination defaults. Since the schema is well-documented, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 Plan Revision Logs' states the verb 'Show' and resource 'Plan Revision Logs', which clarifies it's a retrieval operation. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_plan_revision_logs' or 'show_plan_revision_log', leaving ambiguity about scope (single vs. multiple logs). The inclusion of the API endpoint adds technical detail but doesn't enhance purpose clarity.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about whether this retrieves a single log by ID (implied by the {id} parameter) versus listing multiple logs, and doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_plan_revision_logs' for broader queries. Usage is inferred from parameters but not explicitly stated.

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