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 'PATCH' which implies a partial update, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, error handling, or what happens to unspecified fields (e.g., if they remain unchanged or get cleared). The description lacks crucial context for a mutation tool.

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 API endpoint reference. It's front-loaded with the key action. However, the inclusion of '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' adds minor clutter without clear value, and it could be more structured (e.g., separating usage notes).

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 (a mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like side effects, response format, or error conditions. For a tool that modifies data, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage by an AI agent.

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 6 parameters (e.g., 'id', 'project_id', 'last_service_date'). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain parameter relationships (e.g., 'id' refers to the log entry, not a company) or provide examples. Baseline 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 states the action ('Update') and resource ('Project Equipment Maintenance Log'), which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it's vague about what specifically gets updated (e.g., fields like service dates, attachments) and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_equipment_maintenance_log' or 'update_project_equipment_maintenance_log' (if they exist in the list, though not explicitly named). It restates the name without adding specificity.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing log ID), exclusions, or related tools like 'create_project_equipment_maintenance_log' or 'delete_project_equipment_maintenance_log' from the sibling list. Usage is implied only by the action 'Update,' but no context is given.

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