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 doesn't disclose whether deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The HTTP method 'DELETE' is noted, but this is technical rather than behavioral guidance for the 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 brief but inefficiently structured. It includes redundant information (tool name restated) and technical details (HTTP endpoint) that don't aid the agent. While concise, it fails to front-load useful information, making it less helpful than it could be for its length.

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 doesn't explain what an equipment log is, the impact of deletion, success/failure responses, or error conditions. Given the complexity of a delete operation, more context is needed for safe and correct usage.

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', 'Equipment Log ID'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but the schema adequately documents the two required parameters, meeting the baseline for high 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 Equipment Log' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It mentions the resource ('Equipment Log') but lacks specificity about what an equipment log is or the scope of deletion. The bracketed '[Project Management/Daily Log]' provides some context but doesn't fully explain the purpose.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., permissions), consequences of deletion, or sibling tools for related operations like viewing or creating equipment logs. The agent is left 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.