Procore MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a destructive operation via 'DELETE' and 'bulk destroy', but fails to clarify critical details: whether deletions are permanent or reversible, if there are rate limits or confirmation prompts, what permissions are required, or what happens on partial failure. 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 a single, efficient sentence that includes the tool name, category, and HTTP endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core action, though it could be more structured (e.g., separating purpose from technical details). There is no wasted verbiage, but it lacks depth.

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's complexity (destructive bulk operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits essential context: behavioral traits (permanence, error handling), usage guidelines, and output expectations. For a mutation tool with significant impact, this description fails to provide adequate guidance for safe and correct invocation.

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 parameter descriptions: 'project_id' as a unique identifier and 'time_and_material_entry_attachment_ids' as IDs for bulk destroy. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema itself is well-documented. 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 restates the tool name ('Bulk Delete Time and Material Attachments') with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It adds a category tag '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' and HTTP method 'DELETE /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/time_and_material_entry_attachments/bulk_destroy', but does not specify what 'bulk delete' entails (e.g., permanent removal, batch operation) or differentiate it from sibling tools like 'delete_a_time_and_material_attachment' (single deletion).

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 (e.g., permissions), constraints (e.g., maximum batch size), or compare it to sibling tools such as 'delete_a_time_and_material_attachment' for single deletions or other bulk operations. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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