Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Show Weather Logs' and includes an endpoint path, but does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what the output format is, or any rate limits. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the name.

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: 'Show Weather Logs' and the endpoint path. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The first part is redundant with the name, and the second part (endpoint) is useful but not front-loaded with actionable guidance. It avoids waste 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 the complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what weather logs are, what data they contain, or how the output is structured. Without annotations or an output schema, the agent lacks sufficient context to understand the tool's behavior and results, making this inadequate for a retrieval tool.

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 all parameters well-documented in the input schema (e.g., project_id, id as log date, log_date override, pagination). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but since the schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as 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 'Show Weather Logs' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It mentions the endpoint path and category '[Project Management/Daily Log]' but fails to specify what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieve, list, or display weather logs for a project). While the verb 'Show' is used, it lacks specificity about the action and resource 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 description does not mention any prerequisites, constraints, or sibling tools that might serve similar purposes (e.g., 'list_weather_logs' or 'show_weather_log_v1_1' from the sibling list). This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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