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 the action is a 'DELETE' operation, implying it is destructive, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. This is a significant gap for a destructive 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 extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by contextual brackets and the HTTP method, all of which are relevant.

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 that this is a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial information about the consequences of deletion, required permissions, or what the tool returns. The high complexity of a delete operation demands more disclosure than provided.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'project_id' documented as 'Unique identifier for the project.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 Notification'), with additional context in brackets ('[Project Management/Field Productivity]') and the HTTP method ('DELETE'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_a_time_and_material_entry' or 'delete_a_time_and_material_equipment_log' by specifying the exact resource type.

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 does not mention prerequisites, conditions for deletion, or what happens after deletion. The sibling list includes many other deletion tools, but no differentiation is provided.

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