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 states 'Update Visitor Log' which implies a mutation operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the update is partial or full, if it triggers validations by default, or what happens on success/failure. The mention of 'PATCH' in the endpoint hints at partial updates, but this is not explicitly explained in the description text.

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 tautological purpose and an API endpoint. However, it is not front-loaded with useful information—the endpoint detail is less helpful than a clear explanation of the tool's function. While brief, it lacks substance, making it inefficient rather than optimally concise.

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 an update operation with four parameters (including a nested object), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or the scope of the update. For a mutation tool without structured support, the description should provide more context to be complete.

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 fully documents the four parameters (project_id, id, run_configurable_validations, visitor_log). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it does not explain the purpose of 'visitor_log' object or the validation flag. Baseline score of 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 'Update Visitor Log' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It adds minimal context with '[Project Management/Daily Log]' and the API endpoint, but does not specify what 'update' entails (e.g., which fields can be modified, what the operation does). It fails to distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create_visitor_log' or 'delete_visitor_log' beyond the verb.

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 (e.g., needing an existing visitor log ID), exclusions, or related tools like 'create_visitor_log' or 'delete_visitor_log' from the sibling list. The agent is left with no usage context.

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