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' (implying a destructive operation) but doesn't clarify whether deletion is permanent, reversible, or has side effects. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the HTTP method hint, leaving critical safety information undocumented.

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 with just two phrases. It wastes no words, though it could be argued it's under-specified rather than appropriately concise. The structure is front-loaded with the core action, but lacks elaboration.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after deletion, whether there are confirmation prompts, error conditions, or what the response contains. The minimal description leaves too many unknowns for safe tool invocation.

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 clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema (project_id and id). Since the schema fully describes the 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 Quantity Log' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding clarity. It specifies the resource ('Quantity Log') and verb ('Delete'), but doesn't explain what a Quantity Log is or what deletion entails. The bracketed '[Project Management/Daily Log]' adds some context but remains vague.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, permissions needed, or any context for when deletion is appropriate. Given the destructive nature implied by the name, this lack of guidance is problematic.

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