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' which implies a destructive operation, but does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens to associated data. The HTTP method 'DELETE' is noted, but this is redundant with the tool name and adds minimal value.

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 parts: 'Delete Work Log' and '[Project Management/Daily Log] DELETE /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/work_logs/{id}'. However, the second part includes API endpoint details that may not be necessary for an AI agent. It is front-loaded but could be more structured to emphasize key information for tool selection.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to address important contextual aspects such as the consequences of deletion, error conditions, or response format. For a destructive operation, more completeness is needed to guide 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' and 'id'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema fully documents the parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 Work Log' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding clarity. It specifies the resource ('Work Log') and verb ('Delete'), but lacks specificity about what a 'Work Log' is or how this differs from other deletion tools. The bracketed '[Project Management/Daily Log]' provides some context but is insufficient for clear differentiation from sibling tools.

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, conditions for use, or any sibling tools that might be relevant (e.g., other deletion tools in the list). The agent must infer usage solely from the name and schema.

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