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 'Remove signature' (a destructive operation) and includes 'PATCH' method, implying mutation. However, it doesn't disclose permission requirements, whether the removal is reversible, side effects, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action. The inclusion of the HTTP method and endpoint is slightly technical but not wasteful. It could be more structured but remains appropriately sized.

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 mutation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on permissions, side effects, return values, or error conditions. For a tool that removes signatures, this gap is significant and could lead to misuse.

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 ('id' and 'project_id') well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 clearly states the action ('Remove signature') and resource ('from timecard entry (Project)'), making the purpose specific. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'Project' context, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'delete_signature_project' or 'remove_signature_from_timecard_entry_company'.

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 mentions '[Project Management/Field Productivity]' as a category but offers no explicit when/when-not instructions, prerequisites, or named alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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