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 'Delete A Signature' and includes a DELETE endpoint, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't clarify if this is permanent, reversible, requires authentication, or has side effects (e.g., affecting timesheet status). The description lacks critical behavioral details like permissions needed, idempotency, or error conditions, which are essential for a deletion tool.

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 title and a REST endpoint. It's front-loaded but under-specified, as the endpoint adds technical detail without explanatory value for an AI agent. While not verbose, it lacks meaningful structure to aid understanding, making it minimally adequate but not helpful.

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 (a deletion operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the outcome, potential errors, or system impact. For a destructive tool, this gap is significant, as the agent lacks context on what 'signature' entails and the consequences of deletion, making it inadequate for safe 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: 'company_id' as 'Unique identifier for the company' and 'id' as 'ID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since the schema fully documents the parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. No extra context about parameter relationships or usage is provided.

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 'Delete A Signature' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It includes a category tag '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' and a REST endpoint 'DELETE /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/timesheets/signatures/{id}', which hints at the resource (timesheet signatures) but doesn't specify what a 'signature' means in this context (e.g., electronic approval, timesheet authorization). It lacks a distinct verb+resource explanation that differentiates it from sibling tools like 'delete_signature_project' or 'delete_multiple_signatures'.

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., needing specific permissions), conditions for deletion, or what happens after deletion (e.g., irreversible action). With many sibling deletion tools (e.g., 'delete_multiple_signatures'), there's no indication of when this single-deletion tool is appropriate, leaving the agent without usage context.

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