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' which implies a destructive operation, but doesn't disclose whether deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The API path hints at project/daily log context but doesn't explain behavioral implications. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 technically concise but poorly structured. It packs three disparate elements into one sentence: function name, category context, and API path. While brief, it's not well-organized for human readability. The information density is high but not optimally presented for quick comprehension.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after deletion, whether there are confirmation prompts, what permissions are required, or what the response contains. The API path provides some technical context but doesn't compensate for the lack of behavioral and operational details needed for safe tool invocation.

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 both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides, but since schema coverage is complete, the baseline is 3. The description doesn't detract from parameter understanding, so a 4 is appropriate as it doesn't create confusion while the schema handles semantics fully.

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' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It specifies the resource ('Weather Log') but lacks specificity about what deletion entails or distinguishes it from other delete operations. The bracketed '[Project Management/Daily Log]' and API path provide technical context but don't clarify the functional purpose beyond the obvious.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling delete tools (e.g., delete_delay_log, delete_weather_log), but no indication of what makes this one specific to weather logs or when deletion is appropriate. No prerequisites, warnings, or alternatives are mentioned.

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