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 mutation, but does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, side effects (e.g., impact on related records), or error handling. The API endpoint hint suggests a REST DELETE operation, but this is insufficient for agent decision-making.

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 sentences, but the second sentence is an API endpoint that may not be useful for an AI agent. The first sentence is front-loaded with the core action, but overall structure is minimal without clear value-add. It avoids verbosity but under-specifies key details, making it adequate but not efficient.

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 is a destructive delete operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address critical context such as confirmation of deletion, return values (e.g., success/failure indicators), error conditions, or security implications. For a mutation tool, this lack of behavioral and output information is a significant gap.

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 project to get the time and material timecards for' and 'project_id' as 'Unique identifier for the project.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Since the schema is well-documented, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 Time And Material Timecard' is a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb ('Delete') and resource ('Time And Material Timecard'), but lacks specificity about what a timecard is or the scope of deletion. It does not distinguish from sibling tools (e.g., 'delete_timecard_entry' or 'bulk_delete_time_and_material_timecards'), leaving ambiguity.

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 includes a category tag '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' and an API endpoint, but these do not inform usage decisions. There is no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or sibling tools like 'bulk_delete_time_and_material_timecards' for context.

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