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 mentions 'GET' (implying read-only) and includes pagination parameters, suggesting it's a safe read operation with pagination support. However, it doesn't disclose authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the ID doesn't exist. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the HTTP method.

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 three short segments: tool name, domain context, and API endpoint. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the bracketed context feels tacked on, and the URL could be omitted if not adding value. Overall efficient but could be more polished.

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 hints at a read operation with pagination but doesn't describe the return format, error handling, or authentication. For a tool with 4 parameters and potential complexity in work log retrieval, more context on behavior and output is needed. It's minimally adequate but leaves gaps.

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 parameters (project_id, id, page, per_page). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain the relationship between project_id and id, or that id might be optional for listing. 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 'Show Work Logs' states the action ('Show') and resource ('Work Logs'), but it's vague about what 'Show' means—does it retrieve a single work log or list multiple? The bracketed '[Project Management/Daily Log]' adds some context but doesn't clarify scope. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on work logs, but lacks specificity compared to other list/retrieve tools.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description includes a URL path hinting at retrieval by project and ID, but doesn't explain if this is for single-item retrieval or paginated listing, nor does it mention sibling tools like 'list_work_logs' (if present) or other work log-related tools. Usage context is implied but not stated.

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