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 if deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The REST endpoint hint adds minimal behavioral insight. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 concise with three short phrases, but it's not optimally structured. It front-loads the action but includes extraneous REST endpoint details that don't aid the agent. Every sentence earns its place, but it could be more focused on agent guidance rather than technical implementation.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context like permissions needed, confirmation prompts, error handling, or what happens post-deletion. The agent is left with significant gaps in understanding how to safely invoke this tool.

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 descriptions for 'project_id' and 'id'. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting without additional value from the description.

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 Notes Log' states the action (delete) and resource (notes log), but it's vague about what a 'notes log' is. It adds '[Project Management/Daily Log]' and a REST endpoint, which provides some context but doesn't fully clarify the purpose. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'delete_notes_logs' (if present) or other deletion tools.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, permissions, or when deletion is appropriate. It doesn't reference sibling tools like 'create_notes_log' or 'show_notes_logs' for context, leaving the agent 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.