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 does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, side effects (e.g., if it cascades to related data), rate limits, or error conditions. The endpoint method 'DELETE' is noted, but this is structural rather than behavioral context.

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 brief but includes extraneous details like the endpoint path and category tag, which may not aid an AI agent. It is front-loaded with the core action, but the additional information does not add value for tool selection. It avoids verbosity but could be more focused on usage context.

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 is a destructive delete operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key contextual aspects: what a 'Project Equipment Log' is, the implications of deletion, required permissions, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps for an AI 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: 'project_id' as 'Unique identifier for the project' and 'id' as 'ID of the company to get the logs for' (though 'company' seems inconsistent with 'Project Equipment Log'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema provides adequate coverage, meeting the baseline score of 3.

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 an Project Equipment Log' restates the tool name with minor grammatical correction, making it a tautology. It adds the category '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' and endpoint 'DELETE /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/managed_equipment_logs/{id}', but these do not clarify what the tool does beyond the obvious verb 'Delete' from the name. It lacks specificity about what a 'Project Equipment Log' is or the effect of deletion.

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 sibling tools list includes many deletion tools (e.g., delete_a_time_and_material_equipment_log, delete_equipment_log), but the description does not differentiate this tool from them or indicate prerequisites, conditions, or consequences of use.

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