Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Delete Visitor Log' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose whether this is permanent, requires special permissions, has side effects, or returns confirmation. The HTTP method (DELETE) hints at destructiveness, but explicit behavioral details are missing 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 front-loaded with the core action. However, it includes extraneous technical details (HTTP method and endpoint) that don't aid an AI agent in tool selection. While concise, it could be more focused on user-facing information rather than implementation details.

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 deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'Visitor Log' is, the impact of deletion, required permissions, or return values. Given the complexity of a mutation operation in this context, more completeness 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 clear parameter descriptions: 'project_id' as 'Unique identifier for the project' and 'id' as 'Visitor Log ID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Delete Visitor Log' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It mentions '[Project Management/Daily Log] DELETE /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/visitor_logs/{id}', which provides some context but doesn't clearly distinguish this tool from other deletion tools in the sibling list (e.g., delete_call_log, delete_delay_log). The purpose is vague beyond the obvious deletion action.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing specific permissions), consequences of deletion (e.g., irreversible), or relationships to other tools like 'create_visitor_log' or 'list_visitor_logs'. With many sibling deletion tools, this lack of differentiation is problematic.

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