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 whether this is permanent, requires specific permissions, has confirmation steps, or returns any output. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action. The inclusion of the HTTP path adds technical context but doesn't clutter the purpose. It could be slightly more structured but remains appropriately concise.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permanence, permissions, or error handling, nor does it explain the hierarchical parameter context. The agent lacks critical information to use this tool safely and effectively.

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 all four parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the HTTP path shown, which implies hierarchical relationships but doesn't explain them. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Timeline Event') with the context '[Project Management/Scheduling]', providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling deletion tools (like 'delete_a_note_from_the_project_v2_0_company' or 'delete_a_task_item_comment'), which prevents a perfect score.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any mention of prerequisites, consequences, or sibling tool distinctions, leaving the agent without usage context.

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