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 indicates a PATCH operation, implying a partial update, but does not specify required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or error handling. The mention of multipart/form-data for attachments is a useful detail, but overall behavioral context is insufficient for a mutation tool with no annotation coverage.

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 sentences: one stating the purpose and one providing the API path. It is front-loaded with the action, but the second sentence is technical and could be integrated more smoothly. Overall, it avoids unnecessary verbosity, though it could be more structured for 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 is a mutation (update) with no annotations, no output schema, and complex parameters (including nested objects and attachments), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the update entails, expected outcomes, error conditions, or security requirements. For a tool with such complexity, the description should provide more contextual guidance to the 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 parameters (project_id, id, quantity_log, attachments). The description adds minimal value by implying the tool updates a quantity log, but does not explain the semantics of the quantity_log object or attachment handling beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema 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 states the tool updates a quantity log, which is a specific verb (update) and resource (quantity log). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_quantity_logs' (if present) or other update tools, and the purpose is somewhat vague without specifying what fields can be updated. The inclusion of the API path adds technical detail 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the API endpoint and context ('Project Management/Daily Log'), but does not specify prerequisites, constraints, or when to choose this over other update tools (e.g., for bulk updates or specific log types). Without such context, the agent lacks clear usage instructions.

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