Procore MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Delete Waste Log,' implying a destructive operation, but does not clarify if deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., cascading deletions). The HTTP method 'DELETE' hints at destructiveness, but explicit warnings or constraints are missing, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 concise with two brief parts: 'Delete Waste Log' and '[Project Management/Daily Log] DELETE /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/waste_logs/{id}'. However, it lacks front-loading of critical information (e.g., destructive nature) and includes redundant URL details that may not aid tool selection. It is neither overly verbose nor optimally structured.

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 complexity (a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the consequences of deletion, error conditions, or what is returned (e.g., success confirmation or error). For a mutation tool with significant behavioral implications, this leaves the agent under-informed about critical operational context.

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 'Waste Log ID.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since the schema is well-documented, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as it doesn't detract from understanding.

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 Waste Log' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It does not specify what resource is being deleted (e.g., a waste log entry in a project management system) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'delete_waste_log' vs. 'create_waste_log' or other deletion tools. The bracketed text '[Project Management/Daily Log]' provides some domain context but is vague.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing waste log), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'delete_waste_log' (if duplicates exist) or other deletion operations. The agent receives no usage instructions.

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