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 'Delete' implying a destructive operation, but doesn't disclose if deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., audit trails). This leaves critical behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core action. However, it includes unnecessary API path details ('[Project Management/Daily Log] DELETE /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/safety_violation_logs/{id}') that don't aid understanding, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens upon deletion (e.g., confirmation, error handling, return values), leaving the agent with incomplete operational context.

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 ('Unique identifier for the project', 'Safety Violation Log ID'). The description adds no additional parameter context beyond the schema, but the schema is sufficient, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 states the action ('Delete') and resource ('Safety Violation Log'), which is clear but minimal. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_safety_violation_logs' (if present) or other deletion tools, and includes extraneous API path details that don't clarify purpose.

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 lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., required permissions), consequences, or when deletion is appropriate compared to archiving or other safety log tools.

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