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 'Show Quantity Logs' and an HTTP GET endpoint, offering no information on whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters but not explained), or what the output looks like. This is inadequate for a tool with parameters and no output schema.

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 under-specified, consisting of a tautological phrase and an HTTP endpoint. It is front-loaded but lacks substance, making it inefficient rather than concise. The inclusion of the endpoint adds some technical context but does not compensate for the lack of functional explanation.

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 (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's behavior, output format, or usage context. While the schema covers parameters, the absence of annotations and output schema means the description should provide more operational details, which it does not.

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 each parameter (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project', 'Page number for pagination'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema provides sufficient detail, meeting the baseline score of 3 for high coverage.

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 Quantity Logs' is a tautology that restates the tool name. It adds minimal clarification with '[Project Management/Daily Log]' and the HTTP endpoint, but fails to specify what action is performed (e.g., retrieve, list, view) or what resource is accessed. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'list_quantity_logs' or 'show_quantity_logs' (if present), leaving the purpose 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or any sibling tools (e.g., 'list_quantity_logs' or 'create_quantity_log'), leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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