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 of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Update Weather Log' and includes a PATCH endpoint, implying a mutation operation, but does not disclose critical traits like required permissions, whether updates are partial or full, idempotency, error conditions, or rate limits. The mention of multipart/form-data for attachments is a technical detail but insufficient for comprehensive behavioral understanding.

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 technical endpoint details. It avoids redundancy and is front-loaded with the core action. However, the tautological first part ('Update Weather Log') wastes space that could be used for more informative content, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 5 parameters (including nested objects and arrays), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks information on required permissions, update behavior, response format, error handling, and how it differs from creation or deletion tools. The technical endpoint hint is insufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively in context.

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 parameters like 'project_id' and 'id'. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, as it does not explain parameter interactions or semantics (e.g., 'weather_log' object structure, 'attachments' handling). However, the baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage, and the description does not contradict or significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 Weather Log' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It lacks specificity about what 'update' entails (e.g., modifying fields, adding attachments) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_weather_log_v1_1' or 'delete_weather_log_v1_1'. The inclusion of '[Project Management/Daily Log] PATCH /rest/v1.1/projects/{project_id}/daily_logs/weather_logs/{id}' provides technical context but does not 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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing weather log ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'create_weather_log_v1_1' or 'delete_weather_log_v1_1'. Without any usage context, an agent cannot determine appropriate invocation scenarios.

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