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 mentions 'DELETE' and 'bulk_destroy' in the path, implying a destructive operation, but doesn't explicitly warn about irreversibility, permissions required, rate limits, or what happens to associated data. For a bulk deletion 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 brief (one line) but front-loaded with the tool name. However, it includes unnecessary technical details like the HTTP method and path that don't add value for an AI agent. It's concise but could be more structured to emphasize purpose over implementation.

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 bulk deletion tool with no annotations, no output schema, and high-stakes behavior, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context about safety, permissions, and outcomes. The agent is left guessing about the tool's impact and appropriate usage scenarios.

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 in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with any additional context about parameter usage.

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 restates the tool name ('Bulk Delete Materials') and adds a category tag and HTTP method, but doesn't specify what 'materials' are in this context or what 'bulk delete' entails. It's essentially a tautology of the name with minor technical details, lacking specific verb+resource clarity.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, permissions needed, or when bulk deletion is appropriate versus individual deletion tools. Given the destructive nature implied by 'delete', this is a critical omission.

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