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 tool performs a deletion (implying a destructive mutation), but gives no further behavioral context: no warnings about irreversibility, required permissions, side effects, error conditions, or what happens to associated data. For a destructive operation 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 extremely concise—a single sentence fragment—and front-loaded with the core action. However, it wastes characters on the API endpoint path '[Project Management/Field Productivity] DELETE /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/managed_equipment_maintenance_logs/{id}', which is irrelevant for an AI agent's decision-making.

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 a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and many similar sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to address critical aspects: what constitutes a 'Project Equipment Maintenance Log', confirmation requirements, return values, error handling, or how it differs from other deletion tools. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool safely and correctly.

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: 'id' as 'ID of the company to get the maintenance logs for' and 'project_id' as 'Unique identifier for the project.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. With high schema coverage, 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 Project Equipment Maintenance Log' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal additional context. It specifies the resource ('Project Equipment Maintenance Log') and verb ('Delete'), but lacks specificity about scope or differentiation from sibling tools like 'delete_equipment_maintenance_log' or 'delete_managed_equipment_maintenance_log_attachment'.

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 many sibling deletion tools (e.g., 'delete_equipment_maintenance_log', 'delete_managed_equipment_maintenance_log_attachment'), the agent receives no hints about prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or distinctions between these similar operations.

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