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' but doesn't clarify if this is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., affecting related records). The description lacks behavioral details critical 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 brief and to the point, with no wasted words. However, it includes an API endpoint detail ('DELETE /rest/v1.0/timecard_entries/{id}') that may be redundant for an AI agent. The structure is front-loaded but could be more focused on agent guidance.

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 destructive nature and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permanence, error handling, or return values. For a delete operation with no structured safety hints, more context is needed to ensure safe 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond the schema. Since the schema fully documents the parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 entry'), which is clear but basic. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_timecard_entries' (plural) or 'delete_timecard_entry_company', leaving ambiguity about scope or context. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, permissions, or differences from similar delete operations (e.g., bulk deletion). Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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