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 only states 'Update Dumpster Log' without explaining that this is a mutation operation (PATCH), what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, or what happens on success/failure. The mention of 'PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/dumpster_logs/{id}' hints at an API endpoint but doesn't clarify behavioral aspects like side effects or error handling.

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 with no wasted words, consisting of a brief statement and an API endpoint reference. It is front-loaded with the core action, though it lacks depth. The structure is efficient, but the brevity comes at the cost of completeness, as it under-specifies rather than being optimally concise.

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 fails to address key contextual elements like what a 'Dumpster Log' is, the expected behavior of the update, error conditions, or return values. The agent is left with insufficient information to understand the tool's full context and implications.

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 descriptions for parameters like 'project_id' and 'id'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but the schema adequately documents the inputs. The baseline score of 3 reflects that the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have elaborated on the 'dumpster_log' object structure or 'attachments' handling.

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 Dumpster Log' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name, providing no additional clarity about what the tool does. It lacks a specific verb and resource details, failing to distinguish it from sibling tools or explain its function beyond the obvious.

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?

There are no usage guidelines provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist, or how it differs from alternatives like 'create_dumpster_log' or 'list_dumpster_logs' among the siblings. This leaves the agent without guidance on appropriate contexts for invocation.

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