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. The description mentions 'PATCH' which implies a partial update operation, but doesn't specify what happens during updates (e.g., whether it overwrites or merges fields, validation behavior, or error handling). The mention of 'run_configurable_validations' in the schema suggests validation complexity that the description doesn't explain. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 (one sentence plus technical details) but not effectively structured. It front-loads the tautological 'Update Manpower Log' but wastes space on API endpoint details that belong in structured metadata. While concise, it fails to use its limited space to provide meaningful guidance to the agent.

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?

For a mutation tool with 5 parameters (including nested objects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain the update behavior, doesn't mention the 'manpower_log' object structure, doesn't address the 'attachments' multipart/form-data requirement, and provides no information about return values or error conditions. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly.

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 already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have added context about parameter relationships or usage patterns.

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 Manpower Log' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It lacks a specific verb and resource details, making it vague about what the tool actually does. While it includes a category '[Project Management/Daily Log]' and endpoint 'PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/manpower_logs/{id}', these are technical details that don't explain the purpose in user-friendly terms.

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. With numerous sibling tools present (including 'create_manpower_log' and 'list_manpower_logs'), the agent receives no help distinguishing this update operation from creation or listing operations. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual usage instructions provided.

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