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 Delay Log' and includes 'PATCH', implying a mutation operation, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: required permissions, whether updates are destructive or reversible, rate limits, or the response format. The mention of multipart/form-data for attachments is buried in the schema, not 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 brief but inefficiently structured. It front-loads the tool name redundantly and includes an HTTP method and path, which may be extraneous. However, it wastes space on generic tags ('[Project Management/Daily Log]') instead of providing actionable guidance. It is concise but not effectively informative.

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, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It does not address the mutation nature, required inputs, or expected outcomes. For a tool that modifies data with attachments and validations, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively, especially without annotations or output schema.

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 all 5 parameters. The description adds no semantic information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it does not explain the purpose of 'delay_log' object fields or 'run_configurable_validations'). The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation solely from the schema.

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 Delay Log. [Project Management/Daily Log] PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/delay_logs/{id}' restates the tool name ('Update Delay Log') and adds only generic context tags and an HTTP method. It lacks a specific verb-resource combination that explains what 'update' entails (e.g., modifying fields, adding attachments) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'create_delay_log' or 'delete_delay_log'.

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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing delay log ID), exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools (e.g., 'create_delay_log' for new logs, 'delete_delay_log' for removal). 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.