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 states 'Update Accident Log' which implies a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on partial updates, or error handling. The endpoint hint (PATCH) suggests partial updates, but this isn't explicitly explained 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 very concise with just two sentences, but it's front-loaded with the core purpose. The endpoint detail adds technical context without unnecessary elaboration. However, it could be more structured by separating usage hints from the core description.

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 (4 parameters including nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what an accident log is, what fields can be updated, how attachments work, or the response format. For a mutation tool with significant parameters, more context is needed to guide the agent 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%, so the schema fully documents parameters like project_id, id, accident_log, and attachments. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the structure of accident_log or attachment handling. 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 'Update Accident Log' clearly states the action (update) and resource (accident log), but it's vague about what specifically gets updated. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_accident_log' or other update tools, though the context (Project Management/Daily Log) and endpoint hint at its 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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions '[Project Management/Daily Log]' which provides some context, but there's no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or comparison with sibling tools like 'create_accident_log' or other update operations.

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