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 mentions 'DELETE' in the endpoint, indicating a destructive operation, but does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions beyond the implied admin role, or has side effects (e.g., reverting to a default logo). This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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—just one sentence with an endpoint reference. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, and every part (including the bracketed context and endpoint) serves a purpose without waste, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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 complexity (a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral outcomes (e.g., what happens after deletion), error conditions, or return values. The endpoint hint is useful but insufficient for full agent guidance in a mutation 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'company_id' documented as 'Unique identifier for the company.' The description does not add any additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or where to find the ID. Given the high schema coverage, a 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 resource ('company logo'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'delete_the_project_logo' or 'update_companys_logo', which handle similar resources but for different contexts or operations.

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 bracketed note '[Company Admin/Company Settings]', which implies usage context (e.g., administrative permissions or settings area). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'delete_the_project_logo' for project logos) or provide clear exclusions, leaving some ambiguity.

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