Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Update Call Log' and includes 'PATCH', implying a mutation, but does not specify whether this requires special permissions, is idempotent, has side effects (e.g., notifications), or what happens on failure. The mention of 'attachments' in the schema hints at complexity, but the description fails to explain behavioral implications like multipart/form-data requirements for attachments. This leaves critical gaps for a mutation tool.

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, consisting of a single sentence fragment and an API path. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Update Call Log') and avoids unnecessary verbosity. However, the inclusion of '[Project Management/Daily Log]' and the full API path adds some noise without enhancing clarity for an AI agent, slightly reducing efficiency.

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, nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not address the mutation's impact, error conditions, or the meaning of updating a call log in the broader system. Without annotations or output schema, the description should compensate by explaining behavior and results, but it fails to do so, leaving the agent underinformed for a tool that modifies data.

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.' for project_id). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema adequately covers the basics. However, it does not clarify the structure or constraints of the 'call_log' object or the 'attachments' array, which are nested and complex. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but the description misses an opportunity to add context for nested parameters.

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 Call Log. [Project Management/Daily Log] PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/call_logs/{id}' restates the tool name ('Update Call Log') and adds only generic context tags and an API path. It does not specify what 'update' entails (e.g., which fields can be modified) or differentiate it from sibling tools like 'create_call_log' or 'delete_call_log'. This is a tautology with minimal added value.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'create_call_log' for new logs, 'delete_call_log' for removal). It lacks prerequisites, such as needing an existing call log ID, and does not mention any constraints or typical use cases. This absence of usage context leaves the agent without direction.

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