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 mentions 'Bulk Delete' which implies a destructive mutation, but does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether the deletion is permanent or reversible, if it requires admin permissions, what happens to associated data, or if there are rate limits. The description adds minimal value beyond the obvious destructive nature.

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 and front-loaded with the key action and resource. It includes an API endpoint hint which, while not necessary for the agent, doesn't detract significantly. However, it could be more structured by explicitly separating purpose from technical details.

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 is a destructive bulk operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to address critical context like the impact of the deletion (e.g., whether payouts are soft-deleted or permanently removed), error handling, or what the agent should expect upon success. For a high-stakes mutation tool, this leaves significant gaps.

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 each parameter (e.g., 'Unique identifier for the company'). The description does not add any additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters or format constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Bulk Delete') and the resource ('Payouts by Invoice'), with a specific context hint ('Construction Financials/Payments'). It distinguishes from generic delete operations by specifying bulk deletion tied to an invoice, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_payout' or other bulk 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing specific permissions), when it's appropriate (e.g., for cleaning up erroneous payouts), or what happens after deletion. It does not reference any sibling tools for comparison.

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