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 states 'Delete' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behaviors: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, if there are side effects (e.g., affecting linked entries), or what the response looks like (success/failure indicators). For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 front-loads the core action ('Delete a Time and Material Attachment'). The inclusion of the API endpoint in brackets is slightly extraneous but not wasteful. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more structured with usage hints.

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 destructive nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like irreversibility, error handling, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero structured coverage, the description should provide more context to ensure safe and correct usage by an 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 parameters 'project_id' and 'id' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying these are needed for deletion. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 ('Delete') and the resource ('a Time and Material Attachment'), providing specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_a_time_and_material_entry' or 'bulk_delete_time_and_material_attachments' by specifying a single attachment deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'delete_an_individual_time_and_material_attachment' (if that exists) or explain what a 'Time and Material Attachment' is, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 access), compare with bulk deletion tools, or specify conditions for deletion (e.g., permissions, attachment state). The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone, which is insufficient for clear decision-making.

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