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. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about required permissions, whether this is a partial/full update, what happens with attachments, validation behavior, or response format. The API path suggests PATCH semantics but this isn't explained.

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 technically concise but poorly structured. It front-loads the purpose but wastes characters on the API endpoint path '[Project Management/Daily Log] PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/daily_construction_report_logs/{id}' which doesn't help an AI agent understand usage. The description should focus on human-readable guidance rather than implementation details.

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?

For a mutation tool with 5 parameters (including nested objects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain what constitutes a valid update, what fields can be modified, how attachments work, or what the tool returns. The agent would struggle to use this correctly without extensive trial and error.

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 already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain the relationship between project_id and id, what 'daily_construction_report_log' object should contain, or when to use 'run_configurable_validations'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 'Update Daily Construction Report Log' which clearly indicates the verb (update) and resource (Daily Construction Report Log). However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'create_daily_construction_report_log' or other update tools, and the inclusion of the API endpoint path adds technical detail but doesn't enhance purpose clarity.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (like needing an existing log to update), no comparison with create/delete operations, and no context about when this specific update operation is appropriate versus other daily log tools.

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