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 a PATCH operation, implying a partial update, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether it's idempotent, what permissions are required, if it's destructive (likely yes, as it updates), or any rate limits. The note about attachments not being viewable on web hints at a limitation, but this is buried in the schema description, not the tool description itself.

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 Inspection Log'), followed by technical details. However, the second part ('[Project Management/Daily Log] PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/inspection_logs/{id}') is redundant with the schema and could be trimmed. It's efficient but includes some extraneous information.

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 (update operation with nested objects and attachments), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or side effects. For a mutation tool with four parameters, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 parameters like project_id, id, inspection_log, and attachments. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain what 'inspection_log' object contains or how attachments are handled. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate with extra insights.

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 Inspection Log' states the action (update) and resource (inspection log), but it's vague about what 'update' entails—does it modify fields, add attachments, or both? It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'update_inspection_type' or 'update_observation_item', which are also update tools in the same domain. The inclusion of '[Project Management/Daily Log] PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/inspection_logs/{id}' adds technical context but doesn't clarify the functional purpose beyond the name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing inspection log ID), when not to use it (e.g., for creating new logs), or sibling tools like 'create_inspection_log' or 'delete_inspection_log'. The description lacks any contextual cues for selection.

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