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 only states the action ('Delete') without any details on permissions required, whether the deletion is permanent, what happens if no logo exists, or the response format. This is inadequate for a destructive operation.

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 very concise with a single sentence that directly states the action. However, it includes an API endpoint detail ('[Core/Portfolio] DELETE /rest/v1.0/projects/{id}/logo') which, while potentially useful for developers, adds minor clutter without aiding the AI agent's understanding of tool usage.

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 that this is a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks critical information such as permissions needed, whether the action is reversible, error conditions, or what is returned upon success/failure. The agent cannot safely invoke this tool based on the provided description alone.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the 'id' parameter well-documented as 'Unique identifier for the project.' The description does not add any additional semantic context beyond this, so it meets the baseline score of 3 where the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('the project logo'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It directly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_a_project_logo' and 'update_companys_logo' by focusing on deletion.

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 (e.g., needing project ID, permissions), consequences (e.g., irreversible deletion), or when not to use it, leaving the agent without context for decision-making.

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