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 mentions 'PATCH' and includes a category hint ('Project Management/Daily Log'), but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits like required permissions, whether updates are idempotent, side effects, or error handling. This leaves significant 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 brief and front-loaded with the core action ('Update Delivery Log'), followed by contextual hints. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though it could be more structured (e.g., separating purpose from technical details). Every sentence serves a purpose, making it efficient.

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 of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., what happens on success/failure), does not explain the 'delivery_log' object structure, and omits guidance on usage, leaving the agent under-informed for proper invocation.

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 documents parameters like 'project_id', 'id', 'delivery_log', and 'attachments' with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the structure of 'delivery_log' object or attachment constraints, but the schema provides adequate baseline coverage.

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 the action ('Update Delivery Log') and resource ('Delivery Log'), which is clear. However, it does not specify what fields can be updated or distinguish it from similar tools like 'update_daily_construction_report_log' or 'update_delay_log' among the siblings, leaving the purpose somewhat vague in context.

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 lacks context such as prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing delivery log), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'create_delivery_log' or 'delete_delivery_log', offering no usage instructions.

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