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 operation, but does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, or if there are side effects (e.g., cascading deletions). The HTTP method 'DELETE' is mentioned, but this is redundant with the tool name and adds little value.

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 under-specified rather than concise. It includes the HTTP endpoint path, which may be marginally useful for debugging but does not aid the AI agent in tool selection or invocation. The structure is front-loaded with the core action, but lacks necessary explanatory content.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to address key contextual aspects such as the consequences of deletion, required permissions, error conditions, or what the tool returns upon success. For a mutation tool with significant impact, this is a notable gap.

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 both parameters (project_id and id) clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic information about these parameters beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for adequate coverage via the schema alone.

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 Daily Construction Report Log' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It specifies the resource ('Daily Construction Report Log') and verb ('Delete'), but lacks specificity about what this deletion entails or how it differs from other deletion tools in the sibling list.

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. With many sibling deletion tools (e.g., delete_delay_log, delete_delivery_log, delete_dumpster_log), there is no indication of the specific context or prerequisites for deleting a daily construction report log.

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