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 a GET request and includes a URL pattern, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state safety (e.g., non-destructive), authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the HTTP method.

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 but includes extraneous API details (URL and method) that may not aid tool selection. It is front-loaded with the core purpose but could be more streamlined by focusing on functional intent rather than implementation specifics.

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 insufficient for a tool with 4 parameters. It fails to explain what 'showing' entails (e.g., retrieving a single log vs. a list), the role of pagination parameters, or the expected return format. The agent lacks critical 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 input schema (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project'). The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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 Productivity Logs' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It lacks a clear verb-resource combination and does not differentiate from sibling tools, as many sibling tools also involve showing or listing items. The additional text '[Project Management/Daily Log] GET /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/productivity_logs/{id}' provides API context but does not clarify the tool's functional purpose.

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 exclusions, and with numerous sibling tools (e.g., 'list_productivity_logs', 'show_productivity_logs' variations), the agent is left without direction on selection criteria.

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