Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action is a 'DELETE' operation, implying destructive behavior, but does not disclose critical details like permissions required, irreversibility, side effects, or error handling. The mention of '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' adds minimal context but lacks operational guidance.

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. It includes the tool name, a vague category tag, and the HTTP method/path, but wastes space on redundant information (e.g., restating the name). Front-loading is minimal, and the structure does not prioritize actionable details for the agent.

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 insufficient. It fails to explain what 'Delete' entails (e.g., permanent removal, audit trail), expected outcomes, error conditions, or security implications, leaving significant gaps 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 both parameters ('id' and 'company_id') documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the implied need for these IDs in the DELETE path. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 Maintenance Log' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal added context. It specifies the resource ('Equipment Maintenance Log') and verb ('Delete') but lacks specificity about scope or impact, and does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'delete_equipment_maintenance_log_attachment' or 'delete_project_equipment_maintenance_log'.

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 description does not mention prerequisites, consequences, or sibling tools, leaving the agent with no context for selection among deletion-related tools in the list.

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