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 for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Delete' which implies a destructive operation, but doesn't specify whether deletion is permanent, reversible, requires special permissions, or has side effects. The HTTP method 'DELETE' in the URL reinforces destructiveness, but no additional behavioral traits (like confirmation prompts, dependencies, or error conditions) are described.

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 two brief phrases. It wastes no words, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. The structure is front-loaded with the core action, but the additional URL fragment feels technical and less helpful for an AI agent. Every sentence earns its place, but the description is arguably too sparse.

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 inadequate. It doesn't address critical context like what happens post-deletion (e.g., confirmation, error handling, permissions), nor does it explain the 'Manpower Log' resource. For a delete tool with significant implications, the description leaves too many 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 ('project_id' and 'id') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides—it doesn't explain how to obtain these IDs or their relationships. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description adds no value here.

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 Manpower Log' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It specifies the resource ('Manpower Log') and verb ('Delete') but lacks differentiation from sibling tools or specific details about what a 'Manpower Log' entails. The bracketed '[Project Management/Daily Log]' provides minimal domain context but doesn't clarify the purpose beyond the obvious.

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 numerous sibling tools (including other delete operations like 'delete_delay_log', 'delete_dumpster_log', etc.), there's no indication of what distinguishes a 'Manpower Log' from other log types or when deletion is appropriate. The agent receives zero usage context.

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