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 /rest/v1.1/projects/{project_id}/daily_logs/weather_logs/{id}', indicating a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or pagination behavior (despite pagination parameters in the schema). This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 sentences: one stating the tool's name and category, and another providing the HTTP method and endpoint. It's front-loaded with the purpose, but could be more structured by explicitly stating it retrieves a specific weather log by ID. There's minimal waste, but room for slight improvement in clarity.

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 pagination parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'Weather Log' contains, the response format, or how pagination works despite parameters for it. For a retrieval tool with behavioral nuances, this lacks sufficient context for an agent to use it 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 all four parameters (project_id, id, page, per_page). The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between project_id and id or pagination details. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose as 'Show Weather Log' and includes the HTTP method and endpoint path, which clarifies it's a GET operation to retrieve a specific weather log. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'show_weather_logs' or 'list_weather_logs_v1_1', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific tool versus others for weather log data.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description includes the endpoint path, which implies it retrieves a specific weather log by ID, but it doesn't state this explicitly or mention sibling tools like 'list_weather_logs_v1_1' for listing multiple logs. Usage is implied but not clearly articulated.

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