Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Delete Signature' and includes 'DELETE' in the path, implying a destructive operation, but doesn't explicitly warn about permanence, side effects (e.g., if deletion affects timesheet status), or required permissions. The description adds minimal context beyond the obvious destructive nature, leaving critical 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 concise with two parts: a brief statement and an API path. However, it's not front-loaded with actionable information; the API path is technical and less helpful for an AI agent. While efficient, it could be more structured to prioritize human-readable context over technical details.

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's complexity (a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on what a 'Signature' is, the impact of deletion, error conditions, or return values. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this minimal description fails to provide sufficient context 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter definitions: 'project_id' as a unique project identifier and 'id' as a signature ID. The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond this, such as format examples or relationships between parameters. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately documents the parameters.

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 Signature. [Project Management/Field Productivity] DELETE /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/timesheets/signatures/{id}' restates the tool name ('Delete Signature') without adding clarity. It mentions the resource (signatures within timesheets in a project) but is vague about what 'Signature' refers to (e.g., a digital approval, a timesheet signature). The API path provides technical context but doesn't clarify the purpose beyond the name.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a specific project or signature ID), exclusions, or related tools (e.g., create_signature_for_timesheet_project from the sibling list). Without this, an agent cannot make an informed decision.

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