Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states 'Update Safety Violation Log' and includes API details (PATCH), implying a mutation operation. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the update is partial or full, what happens to attachments, or any side effects. The API endpoint hints at project and ID parameters but lacks 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: the action and API details. However, it's not front-loaded with user-facing value; the API endpoint may be technical noise. It avoids waste but could be more structured to prioritize human-readable purpose over implementation details.

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 (4 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a safety violation log is, what fields can be updated, how attachments are handled, or the expected outcome. For a mutation tool with rich input schema but no behavioral context, more completeness is needed to guide effective use.

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 each parameter (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the project.'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 Safety Violation Log' restates the tool name with minimal context. It adds '[Project Management/Daily Log] PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/safety_violation_logs/{id}', which provides API endpoint details but doesn't clearly explain what the tool does beyond updating. It lacks a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from other update tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Given the sibling tools include 'create_safety_violation_log' and 'delete_safety_violation_log', the absence of differentiation 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.