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', indicating a destructive operation, but does not mention permissions required, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, side effects, or error handling. 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 concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and one providing context and the API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, the inclusion of the API endpoint may be redundant for an AI agent if the schema already defines the interface, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 fails to address critical aspects like confirmation prompts, return values (e.g., success/failure indicators), or error conditions. For a deletion tool, this leaves the agent without necessary operational context.

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 descriptions for 'project_id' and 'id' parameters. The description does not add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples, constraints). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately documents the parameters.

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 states the tool's purpose as 'Delete Accident Log', which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., 'delete_a_budget_change', 'delete_a_classification'), leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific deletion tool. It provides minimal context beyond the name.

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 includes a category tag '[Project Management/Daily Log]' and the API endpoint, which implies usage in a project management context for daily logs. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other deletion tools for different resources), prerequisites, or exclusions. The context is implied but not clearly articulated.

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