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 Weather Log' which implies a destructive operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, or any side effects (e.g., if it affects related data). The HTTP method (DELETE) hints at mutation but lacks detail.

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 elements (the tool name is repeated). The bracketed category and HTTP method are extraneous for an AI agent's understanding. It's front-loaded with the core action but could be more streamlined by omitting the tautological repetition.

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 complexity of a deletion operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks critical context such as confirmation of deletion, error handling, return values, or impact on related entities. For a destructive tool, this leaves significant gaps in understanding for safe and correct 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 descriptions for both parameters: 'project_id' as 'Unique identifier for the project' and 'id' as 'Use log date as your ID. Format YYYYMMDD ie:20161108'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema is comprehensive, meeting the baseline score of 3.

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 Weather Log. [Project Management/Daily Log] DELETE /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/weather_logs/{id}' states the action (Delete) and resource (Weather Log), but it's somewhat tautological with the tool name 'delete_weather_log'. The bracketed category and HTTP method add minor context but don't meaningfully differentiate it from sibling tools (e.g., 'delete_weather_log_v1_1' or other delete operations).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description does not mention prerequisites, permissions, or distinguish it from similar tools like 'delete_weather_log_v1_1' or other deletion tools in the sibling list. This leaves the agent without context for appropriate invocation.

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