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 implies a mutation ('Update') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether updates are partial or full, side effects, or error handling. The API endpoint hint suggests a PATCH operation, but this isn't explicitly explained. The description is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero 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 parts: a brief purpose statement and an API endpoint. It's front-loaded but could be more structured. The API endpoint adds technical context without verbosity, making it efficient though slightly cryptic for non-technical users.

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 (mutation tool with nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, error cases, return values, and usage context. For a tool that modifies data, this gap is significant and could lead to incorrect invocations.

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 documents all parameters (project_id, id, work_log, attachments). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain the structure of 'work_log' or the purpose of 'attachments'. 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 'Update Work Log' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It mentions the resource ('Work Log') but lacks details about what fields can be updated or the context. While it includes an API endpoint hint ('PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/work_logs/{id}'), this doesn't clarify the tool's purpose beyond the obvious.

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, constraints, or sibling tools (e.g., 'create_work_log' or 'delete_work_log' from the list). Without this, an agent cannot make informed decisions about tool selection.

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