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' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behaviors: whether deletions are permanent or reversible, required permissions, rate limits, or error handling. The API endpoint hint suggests a REST call but adds no operational context. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 to the point, with no redundant sentences. It includes the API endpoint which, while not strictly necessary, is concise. However, it could be more front-loaded by emphasizing the action and resource more clearly before the technical detail.

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 this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral traits, error conditions, or output expectations. The presence of many sibling tools increases complexity, but the description fails to address this context. It should explain scope, side effects, or prerequisites to be complete.

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 in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters—it doesn't explain the relationship between 'project_id' and 'ids', expected formats, or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but the description contributes nothing extra.

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 ('Timecard Entries'), which is clear but basic. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_timecard_entry' (singular) or 'bulk_delete_time_and_material_timecards', leaving ambiguity about scope or alternatives. The inclusion of the API endpoint adds technical detail but doesn't enhance purpose clarity.

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. With many sibling deletion tools (e.g., 'delete_timecard_entry', 'bulk_delete_time_and_material_timecards'), there's no indication of whether this is for bulk operations, specific contexts, or prerequisites. It lacks any 'when' or 'when not' instructions.

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