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 of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Delete', implying a destructive mutation, but does not disclose critical traits such as 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 concise with no wasted words, consisting of a single sentence that states the action and includes the API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the inclusion of the endpoint '[Project Management/Daily Log] DELETE /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/plan_revision_logs/{id}' is somewhat technical and could be considered extraneous for an AI agent's understanding.

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 the tool is a destructive delete operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key contextual aspects like confirmation of deletion, return values, error handling, or security implications. For a mutation tool, this lack of detail leaves 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 clear descriptions for both parameters ('project_id' and 'id'). The description does not add any semantic context beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or providing examples. Since the schema fully documents parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 Plan Revision Log' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It specifies the resource ('Plan Revision Log') and verb ('Delete') but lacks specificity about what a 'Plan Revision Log' is or the scope of deletion. It does not distinguish from sibling tools, many of which are also delete operations (e.g., 'delete_a_budget_change', 'delete_accident_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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions for use, or compare with sibling tools like 'create_plan_revision_log' or 'list_plan_revision_logs'. Without any usage context, an agent cannot determine appropriate invocation scenarios.

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