Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'Show Visitor Logs' with an API path hint, but doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it returns paginated results, or any error conditions. The API path suggests it might fetch a specific log by 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 extremely concise with just two short phrases. However, it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The API path hint adds some value but isn't integrated meaningfully. There's no wasted text, but it lacks necessary content.

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 'showing' visitor logs entails, what data is returned, or how pagination works. For a tool with 4 parameters (including pagination) and no structured output documentation, the description should provide more context about the operation's behavior and results.

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 the schema fully documents all four parameters (project_id, id, page, per_page). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage via the schema alone.

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 Visitor Logs' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It lacks a clear verb-resource combination and doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'list_visitor_logs' or 'show_visitor_logs' (if they exist in the sibling list). The API path hint provides some context but isn't integrated into the purpose statement.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_visitor_logs' (which appears in the sibling tools). The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the API path alone.

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