Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Delete Call Log' without indicating if the deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., affecting related data). The inclusion of '[Project Management/Daily Log]' and the API path adds some context but doesn't clarify behavior beyond the basic action.

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 short phrases, but the second part ('[Project Management/Daily Log] DELETE /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/call_logs/{id}') includes API details that may be redundant for an agent-focused description. It's front-loaded with the core action, though the extra technical info slightly reduces 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?

For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks critical details like confirmation prompts, error handling, return values, or impact on related entities. Given the complexity of deletion operations, more context is needed 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 clear descriptions for both parameters ('project_id' and 'id'). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or interdependencies. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 Call Log' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It mentions the resource ('Call Log') and verb ('Delete') but lacks details like scope, permanence, or context, failing to differentiate from other delete operations in the sibling list (e.g., 'delete_call_logs' might imply bulk 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 list includes many delete tools (e.g., 'delete_call_logs' for bulk operations), but the description offers no comparison, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage context.

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