Procore MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a destructive DELETE operation but fails to specify critical details like permissions required, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, side effects, or error conditions. The description adds minimal value beyond the obvious implication of deletion.

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 with zero wasted words. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The structure is front-loaded but lacks substance. It earns a 4 for brevity but loses points for being too sparse to be helpful.

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 this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address critical context like what a 'Dumpster Log' is, the consequences of deletion, required permissions, or response format. The agent lacks sufficient information to use this tool safely and effectively.

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 ('Unique identifier for the project' and 'Dumpster Log ID'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but the schema adequately documents the two required parameters. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 Dumpster Log' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It specifies the resource ('Dumpster Log') but lacks clarity on what a 'Dumpster Log' is or the scope of deletion. The URL fragment '[Project Management/Daily Log] DELETE /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/dumpster_logs/{id}' provides some technical context but doesn't enhance the purpose statement for an AI agent.

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. There are no explicit or implied instructions about prerequisites, conditions, or sibling tool comparisons (e.g., other delete or dumpster-related tools). The agent is left with no usage context beyond the name.

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