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 operation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., affecting related records). The HTTP method (DELETE) is mentioned but adds little value beyond the tool name.

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 but includes redundant information: the tool name already implies deletion, and the HTTP method (DELETE) is technical detail that doesn't aid the agent. The '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' tag is vague and doesn't add clarity. However, it's not overly verbose.

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?

For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the consequences of deletion, success/error responses, or any dependencies. Given the complexity of a deletion operation in a project management context, more behavioral context is needed to guide 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 both parameters ('id' and 'company_id') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage via the schema alone.

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 resource ('timecard entry (Company)'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delete_timecard_entry' or 'delete_timecard_entry_project' by specifying the company context, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 like 'delete_timecard_entry_project' or 'delete_timecard_entries'. It lacks context about prerequisites, permissions, or scenarios where this specific company-level deletion is appropriate.

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