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. It only states the action ('Show') and includes a URL pattern, but does not describe whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, if it supports pagination (implied by parameters but not stated), or the format of returned data. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 with two sentences: one stating the purpose and one providing the HTTP method and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core functionality, though the second sentence includes technical details (GET request) that might be redundant if the agent already understands the tool's context.

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 of a tool with four parameters (including pagination) and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'showing' entails (e.g., list vs. single log), the structure of the maintenance log data, or any error conditions. For a data retrieval tool with pagination, more contextual information 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all four parameters (id, project_id, page, per_page). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between 'id' and 'project_id'. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool's purpose as 'Show Project Equipment Maintenance Log', which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it does not distinguish this tool from its sibling 'show_equipment_maintenance_log' or other maintenance-related tools in the list, leaving ambiguity about its specific scope.

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 lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a specific project or equipment ID, and does not mention any sibling tools for comparison, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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