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 Notes Log' and includes an HTTP PATCH method, implying a partial update operation. However, it fails to describe critical behaviors: whether this is a destructive mutation (likely yes, but unspecified), authentication requirements, rate limits, or the response format. The description is minimal and lacks necessary operational context.

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 an HTTP method/path. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Update Notes Log') and avoids unnecessary verbosity. However, the inclusion of the category tag '[Project Management/Daily Log]' adds minor clutter without enhancing 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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is inadequate. It does not explain what a 'notes_log' object contains, how updates are applied (e.g., partial vs. full), or what the tool returns. With no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context about the mutation's behavior and expected outcomes, but it fails to do so.

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 all parameters (e.g., 'project_id' as 'Unique identifier for the project', 'attachments' with upload instructions). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema itself is well-documented, meeting the baseline score of 3 for high 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 'Update Notes Log. [Project Management/Daily Log] PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/notes_logs/{id}' restates the tool name ('Update Notes Log') and adds a category tag and HTTP method, but it does not specify what 'update' entails (e.g., modifying content, attachments, or metadata) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'create_notes_log' or 'delete_notes_log'. It lacks a clear verb+resource+scope definition.

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 (e.g., 'create_notes_log' for creation, 'delete_notes_log' for deletion). It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing notes log ID, or contextual constraints like permissions required for updates.

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