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' (implying read-only) and includes pagination parameters, suggesting it might retrieve multiple logs. However, it doesn't clarify if it returns a single log by ID or a paginated list, nor does it discuss authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions. The description is too vague about actual 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 brief but includes unnecessary technical details like the HTTP endpoint and category tag '[Project Management/Daily Log]', which don't aid the AI agent. It's front-loaded with the purpose but wastes space on non-essential information. It could be more focused on functional guidance.

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 incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., log details, list structure), behavioral traits, or how to interpret parameters. For a tool with 4 parameters and unclear functionality, this leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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%, so parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters—it doesn't explain the relationship between 'id' and pagination parameters or clarify if 'id' is required for a single log retrieval. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description doesn't compensate with any extra insights.

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 shows safety violation logs, which is a clear purpose. However, it doesn't specify whether this retrieves a single log or multiple logs, and it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'list_safety_violation_logs' (which appears to list logs). The inclusion of the HTTP endpoint adds technical detail but doesn't clarify functional 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes 'list_safety_violation_logs', but the description doesn't explain the difference (e.g., single log retrieval vs. listing multiple logs). There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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