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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Update Equipment Log' and includes a REST endpoint (PATCH), implying a mutation operation, but does not disclose critical traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response contains. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 two parts: a brief purpose statement and a REST endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core action, though the endpoint detail might be less useful for an AI agent. There is no wasted verbiage, but it could be more structured for clarity.

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, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on the mutation's impact, error handling, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use this tool effectively in context.

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 input schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the 'equipment_log' object structure or 'attachments' handling. However, with high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the 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 'Update Equipment Log' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal additional context. It lacks a specific verb or resource details beyond the name, and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_equipment' or 'update_equipment_maintenance_log'. It provides only a category tag '[Project Management/Daily Log]' and a REST endpoint, which is insufficient for 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and fails to reference any sibling tools for comparison. The agent is left with no usage instructions beyond the tool name.

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