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 Timesheet' which implies a destructive mutation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, side effects, or error handling. The HTTP method 'DELETE' is noted, but this is redundant with the tool name and adds little actionable insight.

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 front-loaded with the core action, but includes extraneous details like the HTTP endpoint path and bracketed category, which do not aid the agent in tool selection. It avoids verbosity but could be more focused on user 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 is a destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to address critical context such as confirmation prompts, return values, error conditions, or impact on related data, leaving significant gaps for safe agent operation.

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 ('Unique identifier for the project' and 'ID'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema itself is well-documented, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 Timesheet') and resource, which is clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., other delete operations like delete_timecard_entry or delete_timesheet_to_budget_configuration), and the bracketed text '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' adds minimal context without specifying scope or constraints.

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, prerequisites, or consequences. It lacks any mention of related tools (e.g., create_timesheet, update_timesheet) or conditions for deletion, leaving the agent with no usage context.

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