Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'DELETE' and 'bulk_destroy', implying a destructive operation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, if it requires specific permissions, rate limits, or what happens on partial failure. The description adds minimal context beyond the obvious destructive nature.

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 but poorly structured. It front-loads the purpose but includes extraneous details like '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' and the HTTP endpoint 'DELETE /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/time_and_material_timecards/bulk_destroy', which don't help an AI agent. These elements waste space without adding actionable guidance.

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 (bulk destructive operation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address critical context: irreversible deletion, error handling, permissions needed, or what the response contains. For a high-stakes tool, this leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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 in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's already documented (e.g., it doesn't explain format of IDs or constraints). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate or add value.

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 clearly states the action ('Bulk Delete') and resource ('Time and material timecards'), making the purpose specific. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'bulk_delete_time_and_material_equipment_logs' or 'bulk_delete_time_and_material_attachments', which target different resources.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing project_id), exclusions, or compare it to single-delete operations like 'delete_time_and_material_timecard'. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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