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 mentions the HTTP GET method, implying a read operation, but doesn't clarify if it's safe, idempotent, or has side effects. It doesn't describe authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response contains (e.g., log details, pagination). The endpoint path suggests it retrieves a specific log by project_id and id, but this isn't explicitly stated in the description.

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 parts: a restatement of the name and an endpoint reference. However, it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The first part is redundant, and the second part (GET /rest/v1.0/...) is useful but could be integrated into a more meaningful sentence. It's front-loaded but lacks substance.

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 (2 required), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a single equipment log object, paginated results), how to interpret the id parameter, or behavioral aspects like error handling. For a read operation in a complex domain like project management, more context is needed to use the tool effectively.

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 project_id ('Unique identifier for the project'), id ('ID'), page, and per_page. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. However, since the schema coverage is high, the baseline score is 3. The description doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., that id likely refers to a specific equipment log) or usage nuances.

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 Time And Material Equipment Log' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal additional context. It adds a category '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' and the HTTP method/endpoint, but doesn't specify what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieve, display, or list equipment logs). It fails to distinguish this from sibling tools like 'list_of_all_time_and_material_equipment_logs' or 'show_time_and_material_entry'.

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. With many sibling tools related to time and material equipment logs (e.g., 'list_of_all_time_and_material_equipment_logs', 'create_a_new_time_and_material_equipment_log', 'update_a_time_and_material_equipment_log'), the agent receives no indication whether this tool retrieves a single log by ID, lists multiple logs, or serves another purpose. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned.

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