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 implies a mutation ('Update') but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response looks like. The endpoint hint (PATCH) suggests partial updates, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 three short phrases, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It front-loads the core action ('Update Productivity Log') but lacks necessary details. It avoids redundancy, so it earns a 4 for structure despite content gaps.

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 does not explain what 'productivity_log' contains, how updates are applied, or what the tool returns. For a tool with three required parameters and nested objects, this is inadequate.

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 parameters (project_id, id, productivity_log). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the structure of 'productivity_log' or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 Productivity Log' is a tautology that restates the tool name. It adds the category '[Project Management/Daily Log]' and the endpoint 'PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/productivity_logs/{id}', which provides some context but does not clearly state what the tool does beyond the name. It lacks a specific verb and resource distinction from siblings.

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. With many sibling tools present, this absence is a significant gap.

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