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' in the URL, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't confirm safety, permissions, rate limits, or error behavior. The description lacks behavioral details like whether it returns paginated results (suggested by 'page' and 'per_page' params) or what the output format is. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with parameters.

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 and front-loaded with the core action ('Show Waste Logs'). The bracketed context and URL are additional but not verbose. However, it could be more structured—e.g., separating purpose from technical details. It avoids unnecessary words, but the information density is low due to vagueness.

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 4 parameters (2 required), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior (e.g., that 'id' retrieves a specific log, while 'page' and 'per_page' might be ignored or used for related lists), return values, or error handling. For a retrieval tool with multiple parameters, this leaves too much undefined for reliable agent use.

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 parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema—it doesn't explain relationships like 'id' being required for a specific log or how pagination works with 'id'. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but no extra value is added.

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 Waste Logs' states the verb ('Show') and resource ('Waste Logs'), but it's vague—it doesn't specify whether it lists all logs, retrieves a specific one, or filters them. The bracketed text '[Project Management/Daily Log]' adds some context but doesn't clarify the action. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'list_waste_logs' or 'show_waste_log' (if they exist), leaving ambiguity.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description includes a URL path hinting at retrieval by ID ('/waste_logs/{id}'), but it doesn't explicitly state this is for fetching a specific waste log by ID versus listing them. Without clear usage context or exclusions, the agent lacks direction.

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